Sitting of 1 March 1887

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—National Provident Insurance, nominated.
QUESTIONS.

  POST OFFICE—HEAD POSTMASTERS.
  MR. T. BLAKEasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is true that by the present Regulations of the Service all Head Postmasterships in England and Wales with a salary of £120 a-year and upwards, and all in Scotland and Ireland with a salary of £100 a-year and upwards, are filled by the promotion of deserving Post Office officials; whether these Regulations do afford the Department over which he presides frequent opportunities of rewarding meritorious servants, and also secure the efficiency of the Service by the appointment of well qualified persons to fill vacancies; whether the opportunity for advancement afforded by these appointments has created a healthy stimulus amongst, and is greatly valued by, the Post Office servants; whether this system has been in operation for over 25 years and been found to work well; and, whether it is true, as reported in the public Press, that he now proposes to change these Regulations; and, if so, to what extent, in what direction, and with what object will the alteration be made?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I am indebted to the hon. Member for an opportunity of answering in this House Questions respecting which very unwarrantable misrepresentations have recently been current elsewhere. My
  872
  answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. The three following Questions relate rather to matters of opinion than to matters of fact. I may, however, perhaps, be permitted to say that, as regards the more important and responsible of these posts, I entirely concur with the views indicated by the hon. Member. As regards the minor appointments, I consider them less as rewards for meritorious service, or a stimulus to greater exertion, than as a means of providing for those officers who, having no ambition to rise to higher and more arduous functions in the Department, are content to drop into humbler posts of comparative independence. I do not deny that the system may have worked satisfactorily upon the whole; though I am disposed to believe that it would have worked better if rather a higher limit of salary had been fixed at which a postmaster is precluded from increasing his income by other occupations. I have made no such proposal as is suggested by the last Question; and I may add that, during my tenure of Office, while I have accepted the transfer of several of these appointments from the Treasury to the Post Office, I have not transferred any from the Post Office to the Treasury.

  IRELAND—MR. FRANCIS MORRICE, SECRETARY TO THE GRAND JURY, CO. CLARE—FEES FROM ROAD CONTRACTORS.
  MR. COXasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether Mr. Francis Morrice, Secretary to the Grand Jury, County Clare, demands the following fees from road contractors prior to and after the execution of contracts—namely, 1s. for each printed tender form, 2s. 6d. by way of fee, and a sum varying from 4s. to 8s. on being paid the amount of their contract; and, whether these charges are legal; and, if not, whether Her Majesty's Government will take any action to put an end to the practice?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): The Government know nothing of this matter. I have stated before that the Secretary of the Grand Jury was entitled to charge a fee for a form of tender. I cannot give any opinion as to whether the charges mentioned are

  873
  legal or not; but if they are illegal the persons aggrieved had their legal remedy.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— "BOYCOTTING" MR. ALEXANDER WILSON, OF CASTLEWELLAN, CO. DOWN.
  COLONEL WAKINGasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Alexander Wilson, of Castlewellan, County Down, having taken a house from which a Nationalist was evicted, has been "boycotted;" whether the priest of the parish has refused to deal with the man who supplied Wilson with milk while he continued to do so; and, whether it is a fact that Wilson cannot go out after dark without risk to his life; and, if so, whether the Government will take steps for his protection?
  MR. M'CAETANasked, Whether this was the same Mr. Wilson who was reported in all the Tory papers of the time to have been attacked on the 28th of November near Castlewellan, and whose statement, after careful investigation by the Constabulary, was found to be untrue?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I have not heard anything of the circumstances to which the hon. Member (Mr. M'Cartan) refers. With regard to the Question of my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Waring), I may say that the facts as to the "boycotting" are substantially as stated; but the feeling against him is said to be dying out, and as there is a very mixed population in the district he does not appear to have suffered any serious inconvenience. It is not the case that he is in danger if he goes out after dark.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—DYNAMITE OUTRAGE AT RESIDENCE OF MR. T. RICE HENN.
  MR. COX, asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the recent attempted dynamite outrage at the residence of Mr. T. Rice Henn (County Court Judge, Galway), Paradise, Kildysart, was discovered by Sergeant Walsh and a sub-constable who accompanied him; whether Mr. Rice
  874
  Henn is under police protection; and, if not, what was the object of the visit of the police to Paradise; whether Mr. Carey, District Inspector Royal Irish Constabulary, was one of the guests at Paradise that night; whether, on some nights previously, Mr. Carey found Sergeant Walsh and his companion in a public house when they should have been on patrol duty; whether, in consequence of this, Sergeant Walsh and this sub-constable were under notice of removal from Ballynacally Police Station when the outrage was discovered; whether a steward in the employment of Mr. Henn was under notice of dismissal at the same time; and, what was the nature of the report of the County Inspector as to the source of the outrage? The hon. Gentleman further asked, Whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had been directed to the language of Mr. Justice O'Brien, in addressing the County Clare Grand Jury at the Assizes yesterday? When referring to this case he said—
  "Whatever may be the true and real complexion of that occurrence, it does not hear out the existence of a motive of an agrarian crime."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): My attention has not been directed, to the Judge's language, and I cannot say if it has been correctly reported. The statements in the question are partially correct, but they are inaccurate in some important particulars. Mr. Henn was not under police protection. The police were patrolling near his house in the ordinary course of their duty, as they frequently do. The constable who discovered the dynamite was not under notice of removal, as alleged, or in any way connected with the circumstances which led to Sergeant Walsh being in that position. The County Inspector reports that attempts are being made in the district to fasten the guilt of this attempted outrage upon Sergeant Walsh, who has lately, in the discharge of protection duty, become unpopular with some sections of the people. But the County Inspector states that there is no ground for believing this charge, and that he has absolutely accounted for the actions during the evening of Sergeant Walsh, who was also accused. Of course every possible inquiry is still being made.

  HEALTH OF THE NAVY, 1885—INSANITARY CONDITION OF WATER TANKS AT MALTA.
  MR. NORTONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If his attention has been called to the following extract from the Statistical Report of the Health of the Navy for the year 1885, lately presented to Parliament:—
  "The water supply to the ships at Malta had, in the usual routine, been frequently tested and found to be fairly chemically pure; but, in the light of the investigation now carried out, it was discovered that one of the Naval tanks, that, in fact, from which the water was at the time being taken for the ships, had not been cleaned out, it is stated, for a number of years; and the water, on being examined by the Government analyst, was found to contain a large amount of albuminoid ammonia, and pronounced unfit for drinking" (page 47);
  and, who is responsible for this negligence, and what steps have been taken to prevent its recurrence?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. FORWOOD), in reply, said he had looked at the Report referred to by the hon. Gentleman, and considered the matter one of importance, requiring fuller investigation both at Malta and at home.

  ISLANDS OF THE PACIFIC—RECENT DISTURBANCES IN TONGA.
  MR. W. H. JAMESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he can state the name of the Commissioner appointed by Her Majesty's Government to report upon the recent disturbances in Tonga; whether Mr. Thurston, the existing Deputy Commissioner, will take part in the inquiry; and, what steps in the meantime Her Majesty's Government propose to take for the protection of those natives who have resisted persecution at the hands of Mr. Shirley Baker?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): The High Commissioner for the Western Pacific, Sir Charles Mitchell, who is an able and judicious officer, has been directed to go to Tonga. Mr. Thurston will not go thither at present, unless Sir Charles Mitchell should be unable to leave Fiji. The High Commissioner, with the assistance of Her Majesty's ship, will, no doubt, take any measures that he may deem necessary for the protection of natives and others, pending the consideration of his Report.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—BOAT ACCOMMODATION ON PASSENGER SHIPS.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether it is the case that, under the present Regulations, a passenger ship of 1,000 tons burthen, carrying 300 passengers, is not compelled to carry so many boats as a cargo ship of 2,000 tons, with a crew of 30; and, whether, in the Regulations as to boat accommodation, there is any reference whatever to the number of passengers carried?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The boats of passenger ships are regulated by the Passengers' Acts of 1855 and 1863, and the boats of cargo ships by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, and Acts amending it. In both cases the boats are regulated by the net registered tonnage of the ships carrying them, and not by the number of persons carried in the ships. The boats required by law to be carried by a passenger ship of 1,000 tons register are six, of the total cubic capacity of 2,545 cubic feet, of which 900 cubic feet must be in life-boats. The boats required to be carried by a cargo ship of 2,000 tons register are either six boats of 2,034 cubic feet capacity, of which two must be life-boats of 999·6 cubic feet capacity, or seven boats of 1,892 cubic feet capacity, of which two must be lifeboats of 999·6 cubic feet capacity. I would add, however, that the Board of Trade are not in a position to deal with the subject until the Report of the Royal Commission on Loss of Life at Sea has been received, after which the subject will be early considered.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—"THE QUEEN v. DILLON"—THE JURORS.
  MR. CHANCEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a statement of the names, addresses, and occupations of the jurors who were sworn to try Messrs. Dillon, O'Brien, and others on a charge of criminal conspiracy at the late Dublin Commission; a similar statement concerning the jurors directed by the Crown at that trial to stand aside; and a statement of the result of the inquiries, made

  877
  at the instance of the Crown Solicitor, into the political, religious, and other antecedents of these jurors?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I cannot undertake to lay any such statement upon the Table.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—"THE QUEEN v. DILLON"—THE SHORTHAND REPORT.
  MR. CHANCEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the shorthand report obtained by the Crown of the trial of Messieurs Dillon, O'Brien, and others, at the last Dublin Commission, will be paid for out of public funds; and, whether he has any objection to have such report, or portion thereof, printed and circulated for the information of Members of this House?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): As in former cases of the kind, the reports have been prepared for the use of the Government, and it is not intended to circulate the entire or any portion thereof.
  MR. T. M. HEALYpointed out that copies of the reports of the case of the "Queen v. Parnell" had been circulated. He thought there was one in the Library of the House of Commons, and there was one in the Library of the King's Inns. He wished to know, would the same facilities for publicity be given for the report of the case of the "Queen v. Dillon?"
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid, the same rule would be adopted with regard to this case as was adopted in the case of the "Queen v. Parnell."

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CRIMINAL QUARTER SESSIONS, BALTING-LASS.
  MR. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention, has been called to the proceedings of the Criminal Quarter Sessions for the Baltinglass Division of the county of Wicklow, before Judge Darley, on the 15th of January last, when Myles Doyle and Michael Nolan were charged with having, on the 11th December 1886, thrown timber upon the railway, near Balting-
  878
  lass, with the intent thereby to upset the train, and upon a second count with having thrown timber upon said line endangering the safety of persons travelling thereon; whether the prisoners pleaded guilty, and were sentenced to one month's imprisonment each with hard labour; and whether, in view of the serious character of the offence, he will call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the matter?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): It appears, on the face of the Question, that the Judge, in disposing of this case, exercised the discretion with which his office invested him. A Judge is responsible to Parliament alone, and neither the Lord Chancellor nor the Executive has any right to interfere.

  SAVINGS BANKS—CARDIFF TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANK—TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS—PAYMENTS FROM THE EX-CHEQUER.
  MR. HOWELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the National Debt Commissioners paid interest on the sum of £160,000 standing to the credit of the Cardiff Trustee Savings Bank up to September 1886; whether the Trustees of that Bank refused to allow any interest to depositors after 20th November 1885, nearly a year previously; and whether the amount so received, as interest on deposits from the National Debt Commissioners, was devoted to partially replacing the deficiency caused by the frauds of the Actuary of the Cardiff Trustee Savings Bank? The hon. Gentleman also asked, Whether the sum of £3,081 5s. 7d. was paid from the National Exchequer as interest to Trustee Savings Banks over and above the interest accruing on the securities standing to their credit for the year ending 20th November 1885; whether a sum of £6,000, expended in managing the Trustee Savings Banks Accounts in the National Debt Office, was also paid from the funds of that Department; whether he will state the amount paid under the above heads for the year ending 20th November 1886; whether, in view of the absence of control over the application of such funds, eleemosynary grants from the National Exchequer to Trustee Savings Banks should be continued; and

  879
  whether the Government will introduce a measure which will so amend the Law as to guarantee to Trustee Savings Banks the interest legitimately accruing from the securities standing to their credit, and no more?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The National Debt Commissioners allowed interest on the sum of £160,000 up to September, 1886, as well as upon moneys remaining in their hands up to January, 1887, the date of the final withdrawal. The Trustees allowed no interest to their depositors after November 20, 1885. The amount of interest received by the Trustees from the National Debt Commissioners between November 20, 1885, and January, 1887, was £4,543, the bulk of which would have been payable to the depositors but for the action taken by the Trustees in stopping interest after November 20, 1885. The amount of interest thus credited to the Trustees was, therefore, applied to the partial reduction of the deficiency caused by the frauds. The National Debt Commissioners were not aware that interest to the depositors had been stopped until January 17, 1887, after the last moneys at interest had been withdrawn. Under the Act of 1880 (43 & 44 Viet. c. 36 s. 2) the National Debt Commissioners are obliged to allow interest at the rate of 3 per cent on the money deposited with them by the Savings Bank Trustees. The Commissioners invest this money and any other moneys they may hold, and the rate of interest they earn is sometimes less and sometimes more than 3 per cent. If it is less, as it is at present, they have, nevertheless, to give the Trustees their 3 per cent. and the deficiency falls on the Exchequer. If, on the other hand, it is more, the amount earned in excess of 3 per cent goes into the Exchequer. At present, as I have said, the Commissioners get less than 8 per cent on their investments as a whole, and so they have to pay the Trustees more than the interest earned on their deposits. On the whole, however, the Exchequer has gained rather than lost by the arrangement since 1880, and I see no reason for altering it. In answer to the hon. Member's other Questions, I have to say that the amount paid to the Trustees in excess of the interest earned on their deposits was in
  880
  the years ended November 20, 1884, £3,081; 1885, £4,774; and 1886, £4,096 (estimate) respectively, and that the estimated annual cost of the management of the work connected with the Banks is £6,000.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—COUNTY INSPECTOR BROWNRIGG.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether County Inspector Brownrigg was fined at Youghal Petty Sessions, held on Thursday, the 18th February, for assault; how many previous criminal convictions are recorded against the said peace officer; and, whether such convictions diminish the pension usually accorded well-conducted officers on retirement from the Service; and, if so, to what extent will it affect the said County Inspector?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): For an alleged assault committed in the discharge of his duty Inspector Brownrigg was fined in a nominal sum of a farthing, without costs, and the magistrates said the case should never have been brought into Court. No previous criminal convictions are recorded against him.
  DR. TANNERasked if the right hon. Gentleman could say why such a statement was made by the magistrates—that the case should never have been brought into Court—when they were obliged to fine him?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I really do not know. I suppose they found themselves technically obliged to convict him.

  SLAVE TRAFFIC—EAST COAST OF AFRICA.
  MR. HANBURYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, What is the number and description of the cruisers of Her Majesty's Navy exclusively engaged in the suppression of the slave traffic along the East Coast of Africa and on the Red Sea?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): There are one corvette, two sloops, and three gun vessels employed on the East Coast of Africa and in the Red Sea. These ships are there for the general work of the Station, and cannot be described as exclusively engaged in the suppression

  881
  of the slave traffic; though they are provided with the necessary warrants to enable them to act whenever occasion requires in the suppression of the Slave Trade. In addition to the above there are three vessels, usually employed in the Persian Gulf and on the Arabian Coast, which assist in the suppression of the Slave Trade?

  CENTRAL ASIAN AFFAIRS—OFFICIAL INFORMATION.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the fact that no official information has been furnished to Parliament on Central Asian affairs during this and the preceding Parliament, nor since May 1885, when Blue Book, "Central Asia" 5, 1885, was issued; and, when further and more recent information will be furnished to Parliament on this subject?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The Blue Book "Central Asia" No. 4, 1885, carries the Correspondence down to the signature of the Protocol of September 10, 1885, for the settlement of the Afghan Frontier from Zulfikar towards the Oxus. Certain points in that frontier are still under discussion; and it would not be desirable to present further Papers until these are arranged.

  WATER SUPPLY—(METROPOLIS) CHELSEA WATER COMPANY.
  COLONEL DAWNAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the action of the Chelsea Water Company, who have cut off the water supply from a house in Cadogan Street because it was derived from a pipe through an adjoining house, the tenant of which has not paid his water rate; whether he is aware that the Chelsea Company refuse to renew the water supply without payment of the arrears due by the late tenant of the adjoining house; and, whether he will take steps to prevent householders from being subjected to similar treatment by the London Water Companies in future?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. RITCHIE)(who replied): The Board has no information respecting this case prior to notice of
  882
  the Question being given yesterday. At present I can only say that I have to-day communicated with the Chelsea Waterworks Company, and I am informed by them that the supplies to Nos. 10 and 12, Cadogan Street, have recently been withdrawn on due notice for non-payment of water rates; that each house had a separate supply from the road way, which was withdrawn in each case; that the tenant of No. 12, to which the Question refers, has not yet paid the statutory charges to entitle him to have the supply re-instated; and that it is on this account that the supply has not been renewed, and not, as the tenant states, because the arrears due by the late tenant of the joint house, No. 10, have not been paid.

  WAR OFFICE—FORTIFICATION OF SINGAPORE—ARMAMENT.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can state how many guns have been sent out to Singapore for the fortifications planned and approved of in the year 1884, and when the armaments for the defences now in process of erection will be completed; and, whether the Government propose to fortify the northern end of the Island of Singapore, and any part of the adjacent territory of Johore, in order to secure the efficient defence of Singapore as a coaling station?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): A large proportion of the guns required for the defence of Singapore has been sent out. Of the remainder all but two will be despatched during the present year. I am sure that my hon. Friend will see that it is not desirable for me, in the interests of the Public Service, to give details of the work.

  WAR OFFICE (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)—DEFICIENCIES IN NAVAL GUNS AND AMMUNITION.
  SIR WLLLIAM PLOWDENasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether the Papers and Correspondence embodying the facts relating to alleged deficiencies in naval guns and ammunition, amounting to upwards of £1,250,000, and the delay in the transfer of Votes for Naval Ordnance from the Army to the Navy

  883
  Estimates, have been printed; and, if so, can they be seen by Members of this House on application to the War Office; and, if not, can he state the reason?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL (Mr. NORTHCOTE): With reference to the first part of the Question, I am not aware of the existence of any such correspondence. With regard to the question of transfer to Naval Votes, the Inter-Departmental Correspondence is not yet complete; and, under such circumstances, correspondence is usually regarded as confidential.

  VACCINATION.
  MR. T. ROBINSONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether a great number of parents refuse to have their children vaccinated because they believe that vaccination is useless and dangerous; and, whether he proposes to take any steps to put an end to the imposition of cumulative penalties? The hon. Member said he wished to put another Question, which he had not placed on the Paper—namely, whether, having regard to the many persons who had conscientious objections to vaccination, Her Majesty's Government would have the whole matter inquired into, either by a Royal Commission or a Committee of that House?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): In reply to the last Question, I have to say that the Government cannot consent to any such inquiry. To the Question on the Paper my answer is as follows:—There is no doubt that a certain number of persons object to have their children vaccinated. The views of the Local Government Board on the Question of repeated prosecutions are well known. They were set forth in a letter to the Board of Guardians of the Evesham Union, which was presented to Parliament. I cannot hold out any expectations that the Board will propose legislation with the view of preventing the imposition of cumulative penalties.

  INDIA—MADRAS ARMY CLOTHING DEPARTMENT—EXCLUSION OF EUROPEAN ARTICLES.
  MR. HOYLEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Superin-
  884
  tendent of Army Clothing, Madras, in inviting tenders for the use of the Army Clothing Department for the official year 1888–9, uses the following words, "Articles of European manufacture are not required;" and, if so, why are goods of Lancashire and Yorkshire manufacture practically excluded from competition, without any reference to quality or price?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): It is a rule of the Indian Service that articles of European manufacture must be purchased through the Stores Department of the India Office, in order that they may be properly inspected in this country before being sent out. A large demand for Army clothing for Madras for 1888–9 is now being dealt with in that Department. Where it is found to be more economical to use an article of local manufacture or indigenous origin the purchase is effected in India. The expression referred to in the Question, which does not seem a very happy one, appears intended to give notice of this limitation of authority to purchase on the part of the Government of Madras. The Secretary of State will call the attention of the Madras Government to the subject.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS (IRELAND).
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If local Justices of the Peace in Ireland are to be the sole judges as to the legality of the objects of meetings; and, whether they will be allowed, upon their own interpretation of matters of law and fact, to suppress public meetings indiscriminately?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): Local Justices in Ireland are not the sole judges as to the legality of their acts, and ought not to suppress public meetings indiscriminately.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a Proclamation was issued on Saturday evening the 12th February and posted in and about the town of Youghal; whether the Proclamation was signed by Thos. O. Plunkett, S.R.M., and Starkie, R.M., forbidding any public meeting of the

  885
  people of Youghal, or of the surrounding district, on Sunday the 13th February; whether it is true that no less than four meetings were held in the locality on the date in question; whether the meeting was proclaimed by the said Resident Magistrates owing to, or in consequence of, informations having been received by them that, were any meeting permitted to be held in the locality, that it might lead to a breach or disturbance of the peace; whether the said informations were given by three men, named W. S. Hunt, Bailey, and Blackeney; and, whether these men are members and paid agents of the Defence Union?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: A notice prohibiting an intended meeting was signed and posted as stated. Informations had been sworn, but not by the persons mentioned in the Question. Captain Plunkett has the full approval of the Government for his action in the matter, which was justified by the circumstances of the district and the matters sworn in the informations. Very exaggerated reports have been published as to other meetings held in the locality on the occasion.
  DR. TANNERasked if the right hon. Gentleman could say by whom the informations were sworn?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid he was not prepared to do so.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Does the right hon. Gentleman make any distinction between Resident Magistrates and ordinary Justices of the Peace; and would it, in his opinion, be in the power of ordinary Justices to proclaim a meeting?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Ordinary Justices of the Peace in Ireland or in England have to act for the preservation of the peace, and are responsible for their actions in that capacity. Any person aggrieved has a right of legal action against them.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask whether the Government will give a guarantee that if an action be brought against Justices of the Peace they will not help the Justices by defraying the expenses of the litigation?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I certainly will reply to no Question of that sort. The Government will deal with any matter as it arises,

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES—THE FISHING BOAT "SKYLARK."
  SIR SAVILE CROSSLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the amount of damages to be paid by Her Majesty's Government to the owners of the fishing boat Skylark, during the last autumn fishing season in the North Sea, has yet been settled; and, whether the money due to the crew, on account of clothing and other necessaries lost, has yet been agreed upon and paid; and, if not, whether he will take steps to have it paid as soon as possible, to enable the men to proceed to sea and earn their living?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): £200, the amount due to the crew of the Skylark for the loss of clothing and estimated profits, has been paid. The residue of the claim is in the course of settlement, and is being pushed forward as rapidly as possible.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES CONVENTION—DAMAGES BY BELGIAN OWNERS.
  SIR SAVILE CROSSLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware that the numerous actions brought by English fishing-boat owners against Belgian owners, to obtain compensation for wilful damages, have resulted in every case in the infliction of a merely nominal fine; and, in view of the fact that justice cannot be obtained, what steps will be taken by Her Majesty's Government to amend the present North Sea Fisheries Convention?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I am aware that in numerous prosecutions of Belgian fishermen for wilful damage to the property of British fishermen, fines, with alternative imprisonment, of small amount have been inflicted. There is a certain confusion in the terms of the hon. Member's Question, as fine or imprisonment could not be inflicted in actions brought for compensation, nor could the Judge in a criminal proceeding award compensatory damages. As I stated some time ago, the Belgian law gives a certain facility to aggrieved parties in permitting them to bring civil actions for compensation before the same Judge before whom

  887
  official prosecutions have been instituted. I am not aware that fair compensation has not been obtained in such cases. Her Majesty's Government have represented the inadequacy of the penalties inflicted for some acts of wilful damage. The Belgian answer is that the amounts are similar to those imposed in French and Dutch Courts in like cases; that the persons convicted are condemned to pay the cost of the proceedings, and are subjected to loss of time and wages, besides having in the background the liability to civil actions. Her Majesty's Government cannot, therefore, admit that justice in these cases cannot be obtained.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—POSTAL SERVICE IN THE NORTH OF IRELAND.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Postmaster General, Whether letters from England and Dublin, sent by limited mail to Belfast, are delivered at Newtownards, Downpatrick, Ballynahinch, and the other principal towns in North Down and East Down, in time to have replies forwarded by limited mail from Belfast to Dublin on same day; whether a reasonable offer has been already made by the Directors of the Belfast and County Down Railway Company to carry the mails to these districts in time to have replies forwarded by limited mail to Dublin on same day; and, whether the Postmaster General will make provision to have these important districts supplied with such a postal service as will enable the people to have replies to their English letters forwarded on the day of delivery?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): Newtownards, Downpatrick, Ballynahinch, and the other towns referred to by the hon. Member are not at present able to reply the same day to letters from England and Dublin. The Department has been for some time in negotiation with the Belfast and County Down Railway Company with the view of obtaining an improvement of the service, and the matter is still under consideration. I have also been for some time in communication with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Down (Colonel Waring) on the subject.

  BURMAH (UPPER)—THE MILITARY EXPEDITION—ALLEGED CRUELTIES.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to a telegram from its Rangoon Correspondent, published in The Times of 28th February, in which it is stated that three Dacoits having been killed in an encounter with armed police, "their heads were cut off and carried to Bassein," and that "the practice of decapitating Shan Dacoits, and carrying their heads about the country, is generally condemned; "whether it is true that the practice exists in the British Police Force in Burmah of decapitating dead enemies and carrying their heads about the country; and, whether he will make inquiry into the specific instance mentioned and order the immediate discontinuance of the practice, and the reprimand of those concerned in it if it is found to exist?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Secretary of State cannot believe that such a practice as that of decapitating Dacoits and carrying their heads about the country exists in Burmah. He has already telegraphed to India to ask for the facts in the specific case referred to.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE NEW CODE, 1887.
  MR. F. S. POWELLasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, When the New Code (1887) of Minutes of the Education Department will be distributed among Members?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE), in reply, said, the Code was now in the hands of the printers, and would be published with the least possible delay.

  LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES—LEGISLATION.
  MR. LEESasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether he has yet come to any decision as to whether he will advise Her Majesty's Government to introduce legislation this Session to amend the Law relating to Limited Liability Companies?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): I can at present only refer the hon. Member to a reply which I recently made to a similar Question, and repeat that the subject is still under consideration. We hope to deal with it, if other Business admits of so doing.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—PURCHASES OF GLEBE LANDS.
  MR. REYNOLDSasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he would suggest to the Irish Land Commission the expediency of suspending legal proceedings against the 47 glebe purchasers in arrear, pending the decision to be arrived at by the Government on the question of legislation in relief of that class of tenants?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): This is a matter rather for the Treasury than for me to decide; but I should not think that the suggestion of the hon. Member could be adopted, for the position of the 47 tenants in question is such that I do not see how they could be relieved from it by any legislation in relief of glebe purchasers generally.

  POST OFFICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—SECRETARY'S OFFICE—PROMOTION.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Postmaster General, Whether it has been hitherto a rule that promotion from Second Class (Grade 1) to First Class (Grade 1) Clerkships in the Secretary's Office of the Post Office should be made by selection for merit; whether the fact that such promotions would be made on this principle was announced by the Post Office (through the Civil Service Commissioners) to competitors at all recent open competitions for Grade 1 Clerkships at which clerkships in the Secretary's Office of the Post Office were awarded; whether he has recently refused to promote from Class 2 to Class 1 in the Secretary's Office a clerk who was recommended to him by the Secretary as deserving such promotion; whether he has insisted on promoting in his stead a clerk against whose promotion the responsible heads of the Secretary's Office have unanimously protested, such clerk being eli-
  890
  gible neither on the ground of merit nor of seniority; and, whether it is his intention to re-consider his action in the matter?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I believe that the hon. Member has correctly stated the practice as regards promotion in the Postal Service in the first and second Questions which he has placed on the Paper. It is also the fact that I have recently declined to adopt the Secretary's recommendation to promote to the First Class one of the junior officers in the Second Class over the heads of several clerks of much longer standing. The gentleman whom I have promoted was, in my judgment, fully qualified for promotion, and was the senior clerk in the class, with the exception of one officer who, on the Secretary's recommendation, has been passed over on about 16 occasions. I have received no such protest as the hon. Member refers to; and I think he can scarcely be aware how serious a breach of discipline such a protest would constitute. I have no intention of re-considering my decision in this matter.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE "BOX FUND."
  MR. O'HEAasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If there was, in connection with the Court of Chancery in Ireland, up to the passing of the Judicature Act, what was known as a "Box Fund," to which the sum of 1s. had to be contributed on the filing of each pleading and affidavit in the Chancery Division; how long the fund was in existence; and, what was the total sum contributed to it, and how was the money applied?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The facts as to the "Box Fund" are substantially as stated in the first part of the Question. The fund has existed from time immemorial. I am unable to give the total sum contributed to it; but in the three years preceding 1875 the receipts averaged £392. They were applied to the payment sometimes of gratuities, but more commonly of small annuities to females in very reduced circumstances, for the most part widows and daughters of solicitors. The fees were collected for the fund by usage only, and when the Judicature Act was

  891
  passed the fund was closed by the then Lord Chancellor, and the balance standing to its credit divided among the then existing annuitants.
  MR. O'HEAasked if the hon. Gentleman could say who were the persons among whom the money was divided and the amounts paid to them?
  MR. JACKSON: Perhaps the hon. Member will give Notice of that Question.

  IRISH PRISON SERVICE—THE "INTERN OFFICERS."
  MR. CONWAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What percentage on present salaries is proposed to be added to the pay in the different grades of all "the intern officers" in the Irish Prisons Service?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The increases are not given in the form of any regular percentage, but the pay of the different grades has been revised according to the conditions of each. The details could not be conveniently given in answer to a Question.

  BURIALS—DISTURBANCE AT STRATFORD CEMETERY—WHITECHAPEL.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the circumstances attending the death and funeral on Tuesday, 22nd February, at the Stratford Cemetery, of Simon Tweed, a boot finisher, of Whitechapel; whether it is the fact that Tweed died in hospital owing to the effects of "sweating," or overwork; whether deceased worked 18 hours per day throughout the year at 10 s. per week; whether the following description of what occurred at the cemetery is correct:—
  "The keeper of the cemetery offered a strong resistance to the entrance of the banner bearers, but supported by their friends, notwithstanding the presence of 100 policemen, these passed through the gates. A circle was then formed around the Tabernacle, and one of the family went inside to see the body. Shortly afterwards the police were called in to eject the mourner, who, it seems, protested against the manner in which the ceremony over the dead was being performed. The police, attacked vigorously by the crowd, barricaded the doors, and batoned the people. Free fighting ensued,
  892
  and a number of people were trampled on in the struggle;"
  and, whether, if the above report is true, it is his intention to make any inquiry into the conduct of the police on the occasion?
  MR. LIONEL COHENasked, Whether the Home Secretary was aware that the persons on this occasion broke into the ground, ejected the Rabbi, who was about to read the Burial Service, and declined to allow the prayers to be read over the deceased, notwithstanding the wish of the mourners?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I know nothing of the cause of Tweed's death, or the number of hours that he worked. The Chief Commissioner of Police informs me that the newspaper account of this funeral, quoted in the Question, is very much exaggerated. The funeral in the West Ham Jewish Cemetery was attended by a procession of Socialists, with banners; and two of them, who behaved in a disorderly manner while the Burial Service was being read by the Rabbi, had to be removed by the police; but with the exception of this incident there was no disorder. I have also information to the effect that certain persons in the procession declined the assistance of the Rabbi, took the coffin themselves to the grave, and buried it without assistance from him. I have no intention of making any further inquiry into the matter.

  HARBOUR ACCOMMODATION COMMITTEE.
  MR. MARJORIBANKSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government to give any effect to the recommendations of the Harbour Accommodation Committee, especially as to the appointment of a small Royal Commission to complete the work of the Committee, and as to giving increased facilities to localities to offer the local rates as collateral security for loans advanced by the Public Works Loan Commissioners?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Communications are now passing between the Treasury, the Public Works Loan Board, and the Board of Trade on the subject of Harbour Accommodation; but

  893
  I am unable at present to give the right hon. Member any definite information as to the increased facilities which he desires to obtain for the construction of harbours; but if the right hon. Gentleman will repeat his Question in the course of two or three weeks I hope then to be in a position to give him an answer.

  STREET IMPROVEMENTS (METROPOLIS)—CHARING CROSS ROAD.
  SIR SAMUEL WILSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government will consider the question of securing the strip of ground behind the National Gallery, and extending into the Charing Cross Road, for the extension of the National Gallery of Paintings?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The strip of ground lying between the National Gallery, Charing Cross Road, and Hemming's Row, is already the property of the Government. It is not at present in contemplation to purchase any more land for the extension of the National Gallery.

  THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881 AND THE PURCHASE OF LAND (IRE'LAND) ACT, 1885.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the First Lord of the Treasury, When the evidence which is referred to in, and upon which the Report of Earl Cowper's Land Commission is based will be circulated?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The evidence is in two parts, one of which is being prepared in Ireland and the other in London. I am informed they will be circulated without any delay.

  THE CHARITY COMMISSIONERS—THE DAUNTSEY CHARITY.
  In reply to Mr. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley),
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he could not interrupt the debate on the Rules of Procedure for the purpose of discussing the
  894
  Scheme of the Charity Commissioners with regard to this Charity. An opportunity, however, should be afforded; and until this had been done he would pledge himself that the scheme should not come into operation.

  PARLIAMENT—ORDER—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (RULES OF PROCEDURE)—THE ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  MR. COURTNEY: I wish, Sir, to put a Question to you upon a point of Order, in reference to the adjourned debate on the Rules of Procedure. The Rule reads—
  "That, after a Question has been proposed, a Motion may he made, if the consent of the Chair has been previously obtained, 'That the Question be now put.'"
  There are three Amendments on the Paper to omit the words, "if the consent of the Chair has been previously obtained," and there are three other Amendments to insert other words after the word "made." The Amendment of the hon. Member for South-East Lancashire (Mr. Leake) provides that the Motion may be made—
  "By a Member of the Government, or the mover or seconder of the Motion then in Debate, or the mover or seconder of an Amendment thereto."
  That of the hon. Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny) provides that it shall be made "by the Leader of the House," and a third Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Eye Division of Suffolk (Mr. Stevenson) provides that it may be made—
  "By a Member of Her Majesty's most honourable Privy Council, or by the mover or seconder of the Motion or Amendment thereto at that time in Debate."
  What I wish to ask is, whether these Amendments ought not to be taken before the Amendments to leave out, "if the consent of the Chair has been previously obtained?"
  MR. SPEAKER: I think the House will see that the Amendments standing in the names of the hon. Members for South-East Lancashire, Mid Tyrone, and the Eye Division of Suffolk should take precedence of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) to leave out, "if the consent of the Chair has been previously obtained," inasmuch as they come after the word "made."

PARLIAMENT—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE (1882)—RULE 2.—ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. LONDON CORPORATION (CHARGES OF MALVERSATION).

  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  MR. HOWELL: Mr. Speaker—Sir, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the action of the Corporation of the City of London in corruptly expending public money in order to influence the decisions of this House.
  The pleasure of the House not having been signified—
  MR. SPEAKERcalled on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places; and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen—
  MR. HOWELLproceeded: Mr. Speaker—Sir, I do not make this charge lightly, nor would I have intervened in this manner had there been open to me any other method by which to call attention to a subject so grave and so far-reaching in its consequences. Had the City Corporation been under the Municipal Law of England, another method would have been open to me; but the Corporation of the City of London is not governed by the Municipal Law of England. A statement has recently appeared in a number of London and Provincial newspapers, wherein it is alleged that a large sum of money—corporate funds of the City of London—was expended by a Special Committee of the Corporation for the purpose of preventing the passing of a Bill for the better government of London, brought in by the late Government. In the article referred to I find the name of an hon. Member of this House—namely, the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir Robert Fowler). I have given the hon. Baronet private Notice of my intention to call the attention of the House to this subject, in order that he may be in his place to hear my statement, and not be taken in any way by surprise. It is not a pleasant task; but I hope to be able to do what I consider to be my duty in a way that shall not be personally offensive to anyone, in or out of this House. The article alluded
  896
  to—a copy of which I hold in my hand—distinctly alleges that a large sum of money was spent in getting up a bogus movement, by bogus conferences and bogus meetings, by hired lecturers, and attended by hired audiences, for the purpose of opposing and defeating a measure then before this House. It is further alleged that tickets were forged in order to get possession of meetings lawfully called for a lawful purpose, with the view of interrupting and upsetting such meetings, and of moving amendments to the resolutions proposed thereat. Now, Sir, if the allegations made in the published statement to which I have referred are true, in sub-stance and in fact, I hold that it is a corrupt expenditure by a public body for an unlawful purpose, and is equivalent to an attempt to unduly influence the decisions of this House. I do not assert that those allegations are true. On the contrary, I hope that an investigation will be instituted by order of this House, and that explanations will be given which will satisfy this House in respect to the charges so circumstantially made. I hope that the hon. Baronet, and other Members of this House, whose names are mentioned in connection with these scandals, will be able to dispel the suspicions which have been aroused. Members of this House should, like Cæsar's wife, be above suspicion; and so also, indeed, should be the members of the Corporation of the City of London, and all other Municipal and Local Bodies. If the source of law and administration should be tainted, corruption will spread through the body politic, poisoning and destroying all that is good and noble in those institutions of which we are all so proud, and which we hope to see handed down unimpaired to our successors. In the absence of any official denial to the allegations I am obliged to assume that the accounts published are generally accurate. No contradiction, so far as I know, has appeared from any of those specifically mentioned, which controverts the main facts as stated. The absence of any such disclaimer justifies me in bringing the matter before this House. If explanations are given in this House which will render any further inquiry unnecessary so much the better, and I shall have done a public service in enabling

  897
  the hon. Baronet and others to show that the charges made are unfounded, and that the money alleged to have been spent was not spent in the manner described. My assumption of the general accuracy of the published accounts must not, however, be regarded in the light of a reiteration, because I am not responsible for the statements, nor for their publication. But, Sir, before taking action with reference to this matter, I asked permission to inspect the documents upon which the allegations are founded. I have seen the documents, and I am bound to tell the House that, in my opinion, they tell a very sad tale indeed. They indicate, on the face of them, a corrupt expenditure of public money for the purpose of promoting a bogus movement and the manufacture of fictitious public opinion, in order to defeat an important measure before this House—a proceeding which I should think is altogether unparalleled in the political history of this country. I refrain from going into all the details of the expenditure which I have examined, as I do not wish to weary the House. I shall only refer to a few samples of the expenditure. But I may state that in the space of one year some £15,000 were spent by the Special Committee, and other items in the previous year's accounts show some £5,000 more, or a total expenditure of some £20,000. I have been over those accounts, and I think that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London should give some explanation in relation thereto—he being a leading Member of the Special Committee which was responsible for the expenditure. I will refer to a few specific items—
  1. An entry appears in the published accounts thus—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Mr. Remembrancer, Disbursements by order of the Special Committee

  5,800

  0

  0

  Town Clerk, Sir J. B. Monckton, ditto, ditto, extra assistance

  200

  0

  0

  City Solicitor, Sir J. Nelson, ditto

  2,950

  0

  0

  Total

  £8,950

  0

  0

  898
  I leave the other expenditure, and take these items specifically, because Mr. Remembrancer, and, I think, the other officials named, have a peculiar relation to this House, with regard to public measures affecting the City; they are able officially to appear in opposition to Bills—a privilege not accorded to any other Municipality in the United Kingdom. Now, let us see how the expenditure of this sum of money is accounted for. The chief items of expenditure may be classified as follows:—
  (1) Hire of halls; (2) printing and stationery; (3) payment of speakers; (4) Committee expenses; (5) cost of stewards (query chuckers out); (6) hire of audiences; (7) cost of advertising the resolutions passed at the bogus meetings and conferences; (8) remuneration of the Secretary, £80 per month, very moderate salary of £960 a-year; (9) remuneration of reporters.
  The meetings to which I shall call attention are—
  (1) Battersea—Bolingbroke Hall, May 17, 1884; (2) Brixton Hall; (3) Peacock Tavern, Islington; (4) Conferences—Bouverie Street, June 2, 1884; and of delegates from West London Workmen's Organization, May 13, 1884; (5) Hibernian Club, Lisson Grove, Paddington, June 8; (6) Prince's Hall, Piccadilly, May 12, 1884; (7) the Kennington Town Hall meeting, May 24, 1884; and (8) Westminster Town Hall, June 13, 1884.
  Let us see how this works out—
  a. Hire of halls—

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Battersea—Bolingbroke Hall, May 17,1884

  2

  2

  0

  F. Sabine, organizer

  5

  0

  0

  W. A. Coote, services

  3

  3

  0

  b. W. O'Phelan, speaker

  2

  2

  0

  C. Wilson, speaker

  2

  2

  0

  —Twist, speaker

  2

  2

  0

  Captain Ffounds, F.R.G.S., ditto

  2

  2

  0

  16

  11

  0

  c. Services of Committee

  12

  0

  0

  899

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  d. Services of stewards

  1

  10

  0

  13

  10

  0

  f. Attendants to make meeting

  15

  0

  0

  g. Payments to reporters

  3

  13

  6

  h. Petty cash as per book

  7

  7

  11½

  Total

  £58

  4

  5½

  Printing and stationery seems not to have been required in this case.
  Advertisements of this meeting appeared in The Times, Daily News, Telegraph, Morning Post, Standard, Advertiser, Globe, Echo, and other papers.
  Resolutions were also forwarded to Members of this House—as, indeed, they should be from so important a meeting and expression of public opinion.

  £

  s.

  d.

  2. Brixton, Hire of Hall

  3

  3

  0

  J. J. Booth, for Lecture

  £

  s.

  d.

  A. J. Dadson, Chairman

  2

  2

  0

  F. Sabine

  2

  2

  0

  W. O'Phelan

  2

  2

  0

  12

  12

  0

  W. A. Coote

  2

  2

  0

  — Twist

  1

  1

  0

  12

  12

  0

  Reporters

  2

  2

  0

  2

  2

  0

  Expenses of attendants to make meeting

  13

  15

  0

  Total

  £31

  12

  0

  3. Peacock Tavern, Islington.—The entry of expenses for this meeting is very simple, as follows:—T. Donati, meeting at Peacock, £6 4s. The reason being, perhaps, that the inhabitants of the neighbourhood knew nothing of it; but the resolutions supposed to have been passed were widely advertised, lengthily reported in The City Press, and copies sent to the Members of this House.
  4. Paddington, Hibernian Club, Lisson Grove.—June 8, entry in accounts, O'Phelan, Hibernian Club—see St. James's Gazette—£5. This was the expression of Irish opinion, and cheaply done, compared with other meetings.
  900
  5. a. Conference of London Democrats, held at 29, Bouverie Street, Fleet Street, under the presidency of W. F. Sabine. Entered in the accounts thus—June 2, Democratic Conference, Sabine and friends, £5; Price (reporter), £1 1s.
  As the resolutions passed at this distinguished conference were several and important, of course the cost was a mere bagatelle—only £6 1s. Five persons only were present.
  b. Conference of Delegates from West London Workmen's Organizations, held at the Montpelier Tavern, May 13, 1884. At this important conference a "Mr. Peters" presided, the same person, presumably who, in a letter published in the newspapers, is addressed as "My dear Peters," by Lord Salisbury. At this conference 13 persons were present. The prominent speakers were, in addition to the distinguished chairman, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Price, Mr. Murray, and Mr. Chandler. An eye-witness of this conference avers that drinks were freely paid for at the bar, and at another public-house, by the two chief speakers.
  6. Prince's Hall, Piccadilly, May 12, 1884:—This was an important meeting. The hon. Member for Devonport presided. The noble Lord the Member for the Ealing Division of Middlesex delivered a vigorous and lengthy speech. The hon. Member for Preston also assisted on the occasion; as did also Lord Algernon Percy, recently a Member of this House. Very important letters were also read from prominent and leading statesmen in this House. The occasion, it appears, was to hear an address by Mr. Oakey Hall, formerly Mayor of New York, and, it is alleged, one of the famous Tammany Ring. The expenses in this instance betoken a public meeting—

  £

  s.

  d.

  The Hall cost

  13

  10

  0

  Printing

  34

  14

  0

  Bill Posting and Boardmen

  41

  16

  8

  Advertising

  57

  19

  0

  Total

  147

  19

  8

  And paid to Kenny—132 men

  32

  10

  0

  Services of Committee and Expenses

  12

  0

  0

  Stewards—outsiders

  2

  15

  0

  Gross Total

  195

  4

  8

  901
  Numerous other items of expenditure are recorded, mostly for breaking up peaceable meetings and moving amendments by hired speakers, supported by hired bands of men imported, purposely from other districts. For example, on May 20, 1884, a determined attempt was made to break up a meeting at the Bridge House Hotel, the platform being stormed, but unsuccessfully. For this work £26 15 s. were paid, the particulars of which are set forth in the accounts. On May 29 and 30 similar interruptions were attempted at Bermondsey and Walworth, and £15 3s. are entered for services, &c. by Mr. O'Phelan, Mr. Coote, and Mr. Sabine.
  7. The supreme effort was, however, reserved for the Kensington Town Hall meeting, on May 24, 1884. The total cost of this organized disturbance is entered at £93 12 s. 6d.; but I shall further remark on totals immediately. Let us see what the accounts set forth first.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Organizers, Speakers, Canvassers, and Stewards

  25

  7

  0

  Reporters, Shorthand Writers and Clerks

  12

  0

  0

  Assistants—Imported Disturbers

  26

  19

  6

  Personal Expenses and Petty Cash

  12

  6

  2

  Wagonette

  1

  1

  0

  Bill Poster

  1

  2

  0

  Printer

  3

  6

  0

  82

  1

  8

  With regard to the nature of this disturbance we have now some evidence. I have here the documentary evidence of witnesses who saw, as they aver, batches of men paid, primed with beer, and their fares paid from the Temple Station. With the details of this I need not trouble the House. If an inquiry is instituted this evidence can be sifted and tested. The Association which promoted these irregular and unlawful proceedings engaged in another mode of attack. The men referred to endeavoured to promote bogus movements in favour of the incorporation by Charter of Greenwich and Westminster, and other places. I leave Greenwich, as a political opponent of my own had to do with that, and refer only to Westminster. The meeting in the Town Hall, Westminster,
  902
  on June 13, 1884, appears to have cost the "Association" nearly £100. £50 12 s. 6d. seems to have been paid for stewards, &c, £10 10 s. for Committee; Mr. Hearne, for organizing, superintending, and speaking, £14 14 s. I need not further allude to details. Now, Sir, it might be said that the expenditure for those conferences, meetings, importation of workmen foreign to the locality to disturb peaceable meetings, and the like, was found by the small Association, with a high-sounding name—namely, "The Metropolitan Ratepayers' Protection Association," more properly described as the Metropolitan Peaceable Meetings' Disturbance Association, if we may judge by the action of its more prominent officers and agitators. One fact will dispel the illusion as to funds. The offices were at 42, Palace Chambers, Westminster; the Council numbered among its members many eminent men—Members of this House—and others. The bonâ fide subscriptions and donations amounted to £26! It expended, according to its books and accounts, in 1884 down to July 31, £3,040 11 s. The difference between the contributions and the expenditure was paid to the honorary Secretary of the Association by cheques. I have seen the books, and the bankers' pass-book, and I think we can trace the cheques and certain signatures. I mentioned just now that I should refer to the total amounts further on. The published statement to which I have referred does not give a full account of all the payments. For this reason—that some of the cheques, many of them perhaps, were paid not to the "honorary Secretary" of the Association, with a salary of £80 per month, but were paid direct by the City Corporation officials to some of the men whose names are mentioned—the patriots, whose services are given for and against so many movements, in the interest of the working classes. The payments to the Press for advertisements amount to a very large item. One paper especially seems to have been favoured. Its reports were long and gushing. Fortunately its influence is not great, outside a narrow area. I need not pursue the subject further. It has not been a pleasant task to me. I have brought it before the House as a matter of public duty. Purity and honesty in public life are dear to me, and always nave been. The fair fame of this House

  903
  is dear to me, as dear as to any Member of this House. I am anxious also for the fair fame of our Municipal and Local Institutions. For these reasons I ask that explanations shall be given, or that an investigation should take place into all the allegations. It appears that a member of the Common Council—Mr. A. C. Morton—has demanded an account of the expenditure of the public money by the Special Committee to which I have referred. He is reported to have said that the Special Committee were ashamed or afraid to report to the Council as to how the money was expended. In my opinion it will be for the public advantage that the expenditure should be explained. Why refuse? If nothing is wrong, publicity will allay suspicion. But the refusal to explain will not smother the scandals which are afloat; on the contrary suspicions will be confirmed, and the last days of the Corporation will be overcast by doubt and mistrust. I earnestly urge that the matter should be cleared up, in the interests of all concerned. I thank the House for the indulgence and attention accorded to me. I hope that I have not in any way transgressed the rules of fair criticism in my speech or allusions. I hope, further, that I have said nothing to hurt the feelings of any hon. Member of this House, or of any right thinking person out of it. I make no charges personally; I insinuate nothing; I take the allegations as they are, and simply challenge explanation, or invite inquiry. A complete vindication of the honour and purity of our public life will give me more satisfaction than such disclosures can do. I commend the matter to the earnest attention of this House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Howell.)
  SIR ROBERT FOWLER: Sir, I have, in the first place, to thank the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Howell) for his courtesy in giving me Notice, some time ago, that he intended to bring this matter forward. I received a note this afternoon, intimating that he proposed to select the present occasion for doing so. I would venture to suggest, Sir, that the more natural course would have been for the hon. Member to move for a Committee of Inquiry in this House. In regard to the matter, I have listened with great care
  904
  and attention to the remarks of the hon. Member. I do not apprehend that he stated that he is personally acquainted with the allegations he has brought forward, nor has he given the names of any persons who are personally acquainted with them. He has only spoken of eye-witnesses. Well, Sir, I can only regard the statements that are made as anonymous tittle-tattle, which deserve the reply that was made in an earlier portion of the evening to a Question put to a right hon. Gentleman below me in regard to anonymous statements. I think that charges contained in anonymous statements, whether affecting a Minister of the Crown or a great public body, ought to be made with the names of those who make them attached to them. I think that they ought to be supported by the names of those who make them. The hon. Member has interested the House with the statement he has made; and if he likes to move for an inquiry, I can assure him, on behalf of the Corporation of London, that we do not shrink from inquiry. There is only one thing that I think we have a right to stipulate for; and that is that if this House thinks the matter is sufficiently deserving of attention to justify the appointment of a Committee, that that Committee should be one which should possess the confidence of the House and of the public. I feel, Sir, that we have a right to ask that three right hon. Gentlemen from the Treasury Bench and three right hon. Gentlemen from the Opposition Bench shall take part in such a Committee, and that it shall be a Committee composed of eminent Members of the House, in whom not only the House, but the public and the Corporation of London will have the fullest confidence. Sir, having said so much, I will not detain the House longer. I have described the statements as "anonymous tittle-tattle," and after that I do not think I need take up the time of the House. I am well aware that many hon. Gentlemen opposite would not complain if the whole evening were taken up with this question; but after what has been stated about Obstruction I do not think I should be doing my duty if I were to further take up the time of the House.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: The hon. Baronet who has just sat down has carefully refrained from denying the accuracy of any one of the specific charges

  905
  made, and I am very glad that he has so refrained. There were two statements made by the hon. Member who moved the adjournment from which I absolutely disagree. One was, "I do not assert that these allegations are true;" and the other, "I feel that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London could not have been aware of the expenditure." On my responsibility as a Member of this House, I accept the challenge put forward by the hon. Baronet. I am ready, if an inquiry, with power to examine witnesses on oath, and to compel the production of bankers' books and cheques, be granted, to prove that money has been corruptly expended in the direction, if not in all the details, put forward by the hon. Member who moved the adjournment; and I undertake specifically to connect the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London with the issue of City funds under conditions which compel knowledge on his part that they were corruptly used for the purpose of influencing the decision of this House. I do not think that I should be consulting the dignity of this House, after having made a specific charge, if I were to utter any word of taunt; but I do not pretend to think, with the hon. Member who moved the adjournment, that it may be possible for the hon. Baronet to acquit himself. If the means of investigation on oath—[Opposition cheers and laughter.]—yes; no one more than the hon. Baronet should insist on the oath. I only said "on oath" because I have read, in connection with one of the names referred to, evidence given which, if correctly reported, was, within my own knowledge, untrue, and was associated with cheques which I can trace. On an inquiry such as I ask, I will show expenditure from the knowledge of which the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London cannot disconnect himself. I will not do more than make that distinct and clear pledge; and I am sure that if such an inquiry be granted, which I understand the hon. Baronet to challenge, I can prove the statement up to the hilt.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London has said that the statements made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green are mere anonymous tittle-tattle, and has said that anybody responsible for them should give his name. Well, Sir, I am respon-
  906
  sible for them, and I give my name. I was asked to publish these statements, and I naturally asked for information and evidence respecting them. I was given the book of the Secretary of the Metropolitan Ratepayers' Association, I of which the noble Lord the Member for Ealing (Lord George Hamilton) was the Chairman. This book was in shorthand. It contained all the statements of the payments made to individuals, with their names, by the Secretary of the Metropolitan Ratepayers' Association. I was also given a bank-book of the Secretary, showing how that money was paid, and through what bank it was paid. I was informed—and I believe truly informed—that the money was placed at the disposal of the Secretary of the Metropolitan Ratepayers' Association by the late Sir Thomas Nelson, the City Solicitor. Now, I naturally turned to the accounts of the City. The accounts, I believe, are not given to the public, but there is no great difficulty in obtaining a copy of them. I found what my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green has stated, that there were the payments in the City accounts. My hon. Friend has pointed out that the sum of £5,800 was disbursed by order of a Special Committee appointed, to act against the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt)—disbursements by the City Remembrancer of £5,800; besides disbursement for Parliamentary agents of £630; counsels' fees, £500; printing and advertising, £750 In addition to these, there were—Printing, £200; hall-keeper, £100; Town Clerk, £200; Sir Francis Wyatt Truscott, Chairman of the Special Committee, £100; and this particular sum of £2,950 to Sir Thomas Nelson. I was further given letters from City officials to the Secretary of the Metropolitan Ratepayers' Association, in order to show the connection there was between the City Corporation and this Metropolitan Ratepayers' Association. I have these letters, this book of payments, bankers' book and other papers of the Secretary, locked up in a burglar-proof safe, and there, Sir, they will remain until we come to some agreement respecting this Committee, which, I understand, the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London says he will agree to. It seems to me the only difference is that my hon. Colleague asks

  907
  that the evidence shall be taken upon oath. I suppose the hon. Baronet will not object to that.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLER: Not so far as I am concerned.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I hope before this debate is closed we shall have some declaration from some Member of the Government—possibly from the noble Lord the Member for Ealing—that the Government assents to this Committee. I will lay before the Committee these books, and they will form their own judgment with respect to them. But it seems to me that after the statements made by my hon. Friend, and the facts I have given, and the positive fact that I have these documents in my possession, some inquiry ought to be made into this abominable expenditure.
  MR. J. ROWLANDSsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green would be only too pleased to accept the Committee which the hon. Baronet wished for. He was surprised that the City Corporation should from 1884 down to the present time have allowed accusations with regard to these bogus meetings to be made against it, and to have appeared in print, without attempting to disprove them. In 1884, a publication, with responsible men at its back, had made these charges as to the expenditure of City moneys in support of bogus societies. As secretary of the Islington branch of the Municipal Reform League, he had had some experience of what was done at meetings in 1883–4. One meeting held by the Metropolitan Ratepayers' Association at the Peacock Hotel, Islington, was of a most bogus character, while at one of the League gatherings they had to send for the police to remove roughs brought there from all parts of London to break up the meeting. He did not suppose that hon. Members from the country knew of the serious magnitude of this question; but there certainly was a very definite reason why it should be dealt with at that particular moment.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he wished to supplement the information given by his hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell). The gentleman to whom his hon. Friend referred, but whose name he did not give, was Mr. Stoneham, who was engaged in obtaining a Charter for Greenwich. As to him, it was said in
  908
  the Press at the time that he received money from the City of London for the purpose. At that moment he was Chairman of the Coal and Wine Dues Committee; and he appeared not very long ago, in conjunction with the hon. Baronet the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), as the head of a deputation to the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) on the subject of those dues. It was wished by the deputation to continue dues that were repugnant to the feelings of the great majority of the people of London.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): Perhaps it will be just as well that this discussion should close. Therefore, I will state in half-a-dozen words what course Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to sanction. Serious charges have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite. These charges have, so far as my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London is cognizant of them, been denied by him. [Cries of "No!"] At any rate, my hon. Friend intended to do so. I thought he had done so; but if his words were not, in the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite, capable of that interpretation, he has since then given me authority to make that statement on his behalf. The Government will be ready to assent, if the House wishes it, to a full inquiry into this matter—an inquiry which will not confine itself to the operations of any one particular Association. With that statement I should be content to sit down if the senior Member for Northampton had not pointedly alluded to the fact that I was Chairman of an Association known as the Metropolitan Ratepayers' Protection Association. It was an Association which, no doubt, was a rival of the Municipal Reform League Association. The hon. Gentleman who opened this debate said he had a great objection to the manufacture of bogus public opinion. What constitutes bogus public opinion? A bogus agitation is an agitation which is conducted for the purpose of misrepresenting the opinions of those in whose midst the agitation is conducted, and of deluding Parliament as to what are the feelings of the people. The subject upon which this agitation took place was in reference to the municipal reform of the City of London. Now,

  909
  there are 60 Members who represent Metropolitan constituencies, and 50 of those 60 hold my views and 10 hold the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The fact is that an agitation was carried on in many parts of London under the auspices of the Municipal Reform League which was absolutely misleading. It so misled the late Parliament that the late Prime Minister and the Home Secretary introduced a Bill which they believed was in accordance with the opinions of the majority of the people of the Metropolis; but the moment the Metropolis was appealed to, it rejected the Bill by an overwhelming majority. Never in my experience of Parliament—and I have had the experience of 20 years—has there ever been so successful an attempt to mislead the Imperial Parliament as to the opinion of a locality as was effected by the Municipal Reform League. The Metropolitan Ratepayers' Protection Association was an organization which was started for the purpose of enabling the other side of the question to be stated. That opinion, as hon. Gentlemen know, was stated with considerable energy at the last two Elections. Statements have been made that a considerable amount of money was spent in corruption. If such expenditure took place, those who indulged in it ought to be punished. But when the hon. Member for Northampton unguardedly said that he had certain books in a burglar's safe—
  MR. LABOUCHERE: No; I said a burglar-proof safe.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: When the hon. Gentleman made that statement it seemed to me an appropriate one, for I read a statement in the journal of which he is the editor, and which we may well know is called Truth, which indicated that the person who made these statements had either stolen or purloined the books. Therefore, I hope the House will not go away with the impression that statements made upon authority like this are reliable.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I can assure the noble Lord that the books were neither stolen nor purloined.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I may remind the noble Lord that I have pledged myself to prove the charges I have made before a Committee of Inquiry.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I stated that upon evidence which was
  910
  afforded by the article in Truth these statements are not of a reliable character. No names, so far as I know, are given in support of the allegations which it contained. Therefore, the House must not be under the impression that if we assent to this inquiry we do so because we in any way believe these allegations to be well founded. They have been made publicly in the House, and the person against whom they are mainly directly has denied them. [Cries of "No!"] At any rate, he has challenged substantiation before a public Committee, or some body specially constituted for the purpose. The Government will acquiesce in a Motion for an Inquiry; but the Motion must be of such a nature as to enable those upon that Committee to go thoroughly and impartially into the whole circumstances of this agitation and the allegations which have been made.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Mr. Speaker, I took no share, nor did my Friends who are near me, in promoting the discussion of this subject at the present time, because, although we perceived at once that the matter was one of the greatest importance, yet we did not feel satisfied that it was one which ought to be brought forward to the prejudice of all other important matters and the Business before the House. But my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell) has stated his case to the House in a manner which I should have thought it was impossible to mistake. As I understand it, Sir—and if I am wrong I shall be corrected—my hon. Friend did not propose that there should be an inquiry into the whole proceedings by all persons who may have taken part in agitation on one side or the other with respect to promoting or opposing the passing of a particular measure. Of course, if we are to have an inquiry into the general proceedings it must be an inquiry into the proceedings of both sides; but the hon. Gentleman's proposal, if I understand it aright, has nothing to do with such an inquiry. As regards what is termed the manufacture of public opinion, a use of illegitimate argument might be deemed manufacture of public opinion, and probably each Party in this House might indulge rather largely in this belief—that the Party with which he does not agree is very much given to the manufacture of

  911
  public opinion. That is an important subject, and it embraces, as it appears to me, almost all proceedings upon almost all questions by almost all parties in this country at almost all times. My hon. Friend proposed, if I understood him rightly, a perfectly definite matter; and so he was understood apparently, and I think indubitably, by the hon. Member who followed him. What I understand the Mover of this Motion for Adjournment to contend was this—that he had proofs in his possession, or he believed that it could be shown, that the public funds had been used by a public body for a purpose which was undeniably illegitimate and apparently corrupt. It is a misuse of trust by the greatest Municipal Corporation in the country; that is the matter now charged. I agree entirely with the noble Lord in the opinion that it is desirable that this discussion should cease; but I am bound to say I think it can only do so upon one perfectly distinct and definite understanding, and that is that Her Majesty's Government will assent to the appointment of a Committee to examine into the specific charges which have been brought by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and the hon. Member for Northampton against the Corporation of the City of London. If any charge amounting to corruption, if any charge involving the betrayal of a public trust, can be brought against the Ratepayers' Protection Association or the Municipal Reform League, by all means let such charge be included in this inquiry; but there is not the least reason to suppose from anything stated in this House during the present debate that such charges will be or can be brought. If my hon. Friend can prove his case it still would not be proved, as far as I can understand, against private persons—matter of which serious notice would probably be taken by this House, although on this subject I will not venture to give at the present moment a definite opinion. The question before us is the misuse and misappropriation of the public funds of a great Corporation. That which the House desires to know is whether Her Majesty's Government are disposed to assent to an inquiry with that object in view, and with a field so defined. I would venture to suggest to my hon. Friend that he should define in few and simple words what is
  912
  the charge he makes, and against whom it is alleged, and then the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will be in a position to judge whether he can or cannot assent to such an inquiry on the part of Her Majesty's Government. Sir, although I point to the Municipal Corporation of the City of London as an object of this charge, I entirely feel how exceedingly wrong it would be if we recognized at the present any fact more than that certain Members of this House have made certain allegations which appear to constitute a primâ facie case so as to require an answer. I will not assume that anyone is to blame; but considering the extreme gravity of the matters laid before us and their perfectly definite character it will be our duty to obtain an understanding before this discussion closes that this debate shall not evaporate in mere generalities, and that we shall, as becomes the character of this House, put matters in a train which will insure a thorough search into allegations of the gravest and most important nature.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I will lose no time in replying to the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). The Government will be perfectly prepared to adopt the course which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested; and if the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell) will place on the Paper the charges he makes and the Reference to the Committee which he desires to obtain, the Government will at once consider the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, and will indicate the course which they intend to take. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen appear to suppose that there will be some hesitation on the part of the Government in securing a full and complete inquiry into allegations which affect the character of a great Corporation and of an hon. Friend of mine in this House. Sir, there will be no such hesitation; but in a matter of this kind, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian has said, it is only fitting that we should see the precise character of the charge to be brought and the Reference which it is proposed to be made to the Committee. There is one remark which I wish to make, and that is with reference to

  913
  the constitution of the Committee. The hon. Baronet behind me has suggested that there should be on it a certain number of Gentlemen from both the Front Benches. It seems to me that in a matter of this kind, which involves grave allegations against an hon. Member of this House and against the Corporation of the City of London, the Committee should be nominated by the Committee of Selection, and that no Party elements should be permitted in the constitution of this Committee, which is a Committee intended to try a question judicially.
  MR. LIONEL COHENsaid, he must utterly repudiate, and he desired to challenge, the assertion of the hon. Gentleman the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir Robert Fowler) could be specifically connected with a corrupt knowledge of the way in which the money had been spent. Such an assertion could not, by any possibility, be well founded. No man had more conspicuously received the confidence of the citizens of London than his hon. Friend, who might be well content to pitt his past life against the assertions of the hon. Member for Northampton.
  DR. TANNERsaid, he would urge that the scope of the inquiry should be so enlarged as to include the proceedings of the Primrose League, as a body which, by corrupt practices and intimidation, worked in antagonism to the welfare of the country.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he confessed that he was not quite satisfied with the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith), who had given a promise which was fair-sounding to the ear, but which, he thought, was dead in the spirit. What he wanted to know was whether the right hon. Gentleman would assent now—not at some future date—to the terms of a Motion calling for a Committee to inquire into certain definite and specific matters? He would say nothing whatever regarding the statement of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir Robert Fowler), for even his political opponents, as well as his supporters, must have felt considerable pain and humiliation at the spectacle which he presented to the House. But the noble Lord the Member for
  914
  Ealing (Lord George Hamilton) had endeavoured to lead off the House on a red-herring trail. The question which the House had to decide was not merely the abuse of public funds by a public body, but definite charges against Members of the House. The noble Lord had been very eloquent about the action of hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side; but when a Member on that side sat with the cast-down look of conscious and trembling guilt, it would then be time enough for the noble Lord to use his tu quoque. No such charge had been brought, and the Leader of the House showed less sense than usual of the dignity of it when he tried to lead his followers away from the real charge.
  MR. CAINEsaid, he was desirous of offering a few remarks to the temporary absence of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell), who had gone out of the House to prepare the terms of the Motion which he intended to make presently. He desired also to protest against the action of the noble Lord the Member for Ealing (Lord George Hamilton). So far as he (Mr. Caine) was concerned he would resist to the uttermost any proposal to bring the Municipal Reform League into the inquiry. That League was an Association supported by private contributions; it had a treasurer and auditors, it published an annual balance-sheet, and against it, up to that moment, not a single word of blame had ever been uttered. The question before the House was an alleged misappropriation of public funds on the part of the Corporation of London. He knew that for some time past a huge conspiracy had existed against a certain class of meetings in the Metropolis, and was glad that that conspiracy had been tracked home. He did not understand the hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir Robert Fowler) to contradict the charges which had been brought against him, but the charges against the Corporation remained uncontradicted. He trusted that his hon. Friend (Mr. Howell) would insist on the Reference to the Committee being confined simply and solely to the one issue.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that he had been at meetings which had been broken up by roughs. He contended that an organized system prevailed for the breaking up of meeting in opposi-

  915
  tion to the Bill of the late Government, and that the Municipal Reform League was connected with it.
  MR. O. V. MORGANsaid, he was not afraid of the inquiry taking a general scope. He would be glad if the inquiry included the affairs of the Municipal Reform League—with which he was connected—the Primrose League, and the Conservative Association in the City. He believed the present representation—or misrepresentation—of the Metropolis was due to the Conservative Association in the City. He would make a statement that would be borne out by the hon. Member for North Paddington, who had just spoken (Mr. Lionel Cohen). During the Election of 1885 a certain person was sent to a constituency, and that person had been for five years an uncertificated bankrupt. Charges had been made against this man by his own father-in-law of misappropriating Stocks. These facts were known to the governing body of the Conservative Association in the City, and yet they said they would go on with their man.
  DR. CLARKsaid, he thought the Committee should have power to inquire where the money came from to support certain Socialists and other candidates at the last Election?
  MR. HOWELLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would accept and agree with the terms of the proposed Reference, which he begged leave to submit, and which were—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon certain charges, brought under the notice of this House by Mr. Howell, Member for the North East Division of Bethnal Green, and Mr. Bradlaugh, Member for the Borough of Northampton, alleging improper use and malversation of public funds of the Corporation of London, by or with the consent of members and officials of such Corporation:—That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they do take evidence on oath:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records."
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I think that it is almost without precedent for a Member of the House to call upon the Government to say, during the short time he has been absent from the House, whether they will be prepared to accept a Motion the Notice of which has just been read. My own inclination would be to accept it; but I do not think it is reasonable that I should do so until I have seen this Notice in print, and thus
  916
  I should be enabled to consider it, and to state the course which the Government would be prepared to take under the circumstances. In saying this, I am sure the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not suppose that I wish to evade any responsibility, nor to lengthen the debate, or desire to postpone the question. I feel, however, that I have a responsible position here, and that I should not be justified in at once assenting to a verbal statement. Therefore, if the hon. Member will put his Notice on the Paper, I will give an answer on Thursday morning.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Perhaps I may be permitted to say—as I made an appeal to Her Majesty's Government—that I think the demand of the right hon. Gentleman is a fair demand. This is a serious charge—and as, on the one hand, my hon. Friend may see fit to amend the words of his Motion, so I think that, on the other hand, it is quite fair that the right hon. Gentleman should have an opportunity of considering—and carefully considering—the terms of Reference, in justice to all the parties concerned. I would, therefore, suggest that the Motion for the adjournment of the House should be withdrawn.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (RULES OF PROCEDURE)—RULE 1 (CLOSURE OF DEBATE).—RESOLUTION.

    ADJOURNED DEBATE. [SIXTH NIGHT.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on the Main Question, as amended,
    "That, after a Question has been proposed, a Motion may be made, if the consent of the Chair has been previously obtained, 'That the Question be now put.' Such Motion shall be put forthwith, and decided without Amendment or Debate:
    "When the Motion 'That the Question be now put,' has been carried, and the Question consequent thereon has been decided, any further Motion may be made (the consent of the Chair having been previously obtained) which, may be requisite to bring to a decision any Question already proposed from the Chair; and also if a Clause be then under consideration, a Motion may be made (with the consent of the Chair as aforesaid) That the Question, That the

    917
    Clause stand part, or be added to the Bill, be now put. Such Motions shall be put forthwith, and decided without Amendment or Debate:
    "Provided always, That Questions for the Closure of Debate shall not be decided in the affirmative, if a Division be taken, unless it shall appear by the numbers declared from the Chair, that such Motion was supported by more than Two Hundred Members, or was opposed by less than Forty Members, and supported by more than One Hundred Members."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
    Main Question, as amended, again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. SEXTON: I beg to move, as an Amendment, in Rule 1, in line 1, after "proposed," to insert—
    "Arising out of the first or second Order of the Day, or a Motion standing first or second on the Notice Paper of the House."
    The reception which, the Government give to this Amendment will enable the House to see whether they will be really satisfied with anything less than the most arbitrary power. It will be apparent that, even if the Amendment is accepted, the Government will be able, at any time, to apply the Rule of Closure to any subject which they may consider so urgent, or so important, as to entitle them to favourable consideration at the hands of the House. This Amendment will not prevent them from applying the closure to the Rules of Procedure, or to an Order, or Coercion Act, or any other subject or Bill on which they may represent the Government opinion of the House. Upon Fridays, if this Amendment is accepted, it will still be possible to apply the closure to any proceeding, even in Committee of Supply. Looking back at my experience of the House, I should be surprised, indeed, to find it contended that after two Motions have been disposed of on a Tuesday, or two Bills on Wednesday, any Member would feel inclined to apply the closure upon a third Motion or Bill. And I should also be very much surprised to hear any argument put forward to convince the House that an effective majority should have the entire control of the Business of the House, and that no Amendments should be debated that was not favoured by the majority. I maintain, further, that on the merits of the question I have a conclusive case. The development of the mind of the Government on the question of closure
    918
    has been curious and instructive. I see the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) in his place. Very little more than a year ago the right hon. Gentleman was personally responsible for bringing forward a series of Resolutions on the part of the Government, in which no proposal whatever for closure was made. What has happened since then to effect so complete a change in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman? Is it because the Irish Members put him into Office a few months before, and because they turned him out when they found that the goods were not according to sample? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) also brought forward Resolutions, and he proposed a closure which was not to take effect at any time, but only at certain times. The draft Resolutions proposed by the right hon. Gentleman when Chancellor of the Exchequer in March last contained the following proposal:—
    "At half-past 6 of the clock at Morning Sittings, and at midnight at Evening Sittings on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays, and at half-past 5 of the clock on Wednesdays, the proceedings on any Business then under consideration shall be interrupted, or the House shall, if in Committee, receive the Chairman's Report; and such Business shall, in the case of Morning Sittings, except on Wednesdays, stand adjourned until the Evening Sittings on the same day; and in the case of the Evening Sittings, and on Wednesdays, shall stand adjourned until the next day on which the House shall sit, unless at the times before-mentioned a Motion shall he made that the Question then under consideration he now put, which Motion shall be decided without Amendment or Debate."
    Now, in the first place, we find that the Chief Secretary for Ireland, when putting forward Resolutions on behalf of the Tory Party, made no proposals whatever for closure, and the right hon. Member for Derby proposed, on behalf of the Liberal Party, that there should at certain times be a closure. The Select Committee in their Report amended the proposal of the right hon. Member for Derby, and this is the form in which they put it—
    "That at midnight on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays, and at half-past 5 of the clock on Wednesdays, the proceedings on any Business then under consideration shall be interrupted, or the House shall, if in Committee, receive the Chairman's Report; and such Business shall stand adjourned until the next day,

    919
    when the House shall sit, unless the Business under consideration at the times before mentioned, shall be the first or second Order of the Day, or a Motion standing first or second on the Notice Paper of the House, and a Motion shall be made that the Question then under consideration be now put which Motion shall be decided without Amendment or Debate."
    I wish to call attention to this curious and remarkable fact. The proposal of the right hon. Member for Derby was that at certain times a Motion for putting a Question should be put, and that Motion was limited by the Select Committee to a proposal that the Motion should not be put unless the Business under consideration at the time should be the first or second Order of the Day, or a Motion standing first or second on the Notice Paper of the House. How was that Amendment dealt with? Three of my hon. Friends who sat with me on the Select Committee supported it on the 13th of May last. Has anything happened since then to induce the Government to change their mind in reference to the question then before the House? The Motion made in the Select Committee was that the Question should not be put unless it related to the first or second Order of the Day, or to a Motion standing first or second on the Order Book of the House. By whom was that proposition made? On referring to the Records of the Committee, I find that it was made by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, and that it was carried in the Committee by a majority of 1. Among the 15 Members of the Committee who carried that Motion I find the names of Sir Walter Barttelot, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Sir James Fergusson, Sir William Hart Dyke, Sir John Gorst, Sir John E. Mowbray, Sir Richard Paget, Mr. Raikes, Mr. W. H. Smith, and Mr. E Stanhope; so that among the 15 Members of the Select Committee who carried the Amendment, which was the same as that which I now propose, will be found the names of nine Members of the present Government. Therefore, I think that unless the Government can show some conclusive ground for changing their minds, I am entitled to say that they are bound now to accept from me the Amendment which a few months ago they themselves introduced in the Select Committee.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 1, by inserting, after the word "proposed," the words "arising out of the first or
    920
    second Order of the Day, or a Motion standing first or second on the Notice Paper of the House."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): As the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) has done me the honour to quote me, it is desirable, perhaps, that I should address a few words to the House in regard to the Amendment. The hon. Member asks me, in the first place, if I did not, in the proposals I submitted in February, 1886, abstain from proposing the closure. I certainly did not propose the closure on that occasion. At that time I thought that the existing closure would be quite sufficient; but subsequently, when the proposal was made to the Select Committee that there should be a fixed hour for adjournment, I recognized that arrangements must be made for the possible application of a thoroughly efficient closure at that hour. Therefore, when the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), acting on behalf of the late Government, included this proposal in the New Rules, I accepted it in principle, but endeavoured to limit its application, so as to guard the rights of minorities. What was the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman? It was not only to institute a fresh kind of closure at any moment during the ordinary period of our debates, but it was also to introduce a special closure at the time fixed for the termination of Business. It appeared to me and to my right hon. Friends who acted with me on that Committee that, in order to guard against surprises, there ought to be some check upon the application of the closure at the hour fixed for the termination of Business. We thought it was perfectly possible that if the first or second Order or Notice of Motion had been discussed for a certain time in the course of the Sitting of the House, that at no more than half-an-hour before the termination of the Sitting some fresh Order or Notice of Motion might be brought under the consideration of the House, and that the closure might be demanded upon that Motion or Bill, and applied without an opportunity being afforded for reasonable discussion. In fact, the closure might, under such circumstances, be applied without hon. Members, who did

    921
    not happen to be in the House at the moment, having had any reasonable notice, either that such Motion or Bill would come under consideration at all, or that, if it did, the closure would be applied to it. Therefore, I proposed to the Committee that the application of the closure should be confined to the Bills or Notices of Motion standing first or second on the Order Book. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) asks me why I and my Colleagues have changed our opinions in the matter. I will tell him. The explanation is very simple. The Government think that they have discovered a still better safeguard against surprise than that provided by the Amendment which was moved in the Committee, and that safeguard consists in the necessity of obtaining the consent of the Chair before the closure can be applied. That, Sir, is the reason for our change of opinion. Believing it to be better than the proposal adopted by the Select Committee, we have withdrawn that proposal and substituted for it the present one, which requires the consent of the Chair.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I think the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland is altogether unsatisfactory, and in no sense the explanation we might have expected. The whole system of divided responsibility between the Speaker and the Minister of the Crown as to enforcing closure is here brought out in the worst shape. The right hon. Gentleman says that we shall have a safeguard in requiring the previous consent of the Speaker to be obtained before the closure can be applied. But the Speaker or Chairman of Committees will be able to get up the moment it is proposed to be applied, and the consent of the Chair can thus be given to its application at once. That will give the Leader of the House a means of escape and a running away under the shelter of the Chair from the censure of the House. One reason which is given in justification of this proposal of closure is that there is no further necessity for the provision introduced by the Chief Secretary in the Committee on Procedure last year, and which my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) now submits to the House for its acceptance, because it is asserted that the Speaker and the Chairman of
    922
    Committees will always be proof against Ministerial influence. It is because I am afraid that that may not always be so, and that such a danger may arise, and because I feel strongly of opinion that the whole reference of the question of applying the closure should be taken away from the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees, that I and my Friends insist now that proper safeguards should be placed on this Rule, so as to protect persons who have introduced Bills placed far down on the Paper, and for the purpose of preventing a measure being rushed through the House without adequate discussion, and forced into law without the opinion of the House having been practically taken upon them. I think the Amendment of my hon. Friend is one which deserves the favourable consideration of the House, because we shall be called upon to discuss most important Amendments further on which will throw the whole responsibility of the closure on the Leader of the House, or some Member of the House who is not the Speaker or Chairman of Committees. That being so, it will be necessary for us to take care that no unfair application of the closure is made by the Ministry of the day, and there is no means we can think of which will have a better effect in securing a fair discussion of all Bills brought before the House than placing beyond the operation of the closure those Orders of the Day which cannot possibly be reached in time to allow the House to discuss them at fair length. Take the case of Wednesday Sittings. There may, perhaps, be 10 Orders of the Day, relating to Bills standing for Second Reading. We know very well that rarely on a Wednesday more than two Orders are reached; generally the whole of the day is occupied in discussing the first Order; and frequently we have experienced in this House the obstructive operation on the part of certain hon. Members of talking out a Bill on a Wednesday. What would happen if there is no such provision as my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast suggests? We might go on discussing the Second Reading of a Bill from 12 o'clock on Wednesday until a quarter past 5; a Division would then be taken which would take about 15 minutes; the second Order would consequently be reached at half-past 5, and having only 15 minutes to discuss it in, the closure

    923
    might be moved and the Question put, and the Bill forced through the House without the slightest discussion having taken place upon it. I have been told by a gentleman from South Australia how the application of the closure in the South Australian Legislature works. On one occasion a question of some importance, which was made the means of turning out the Ministry, was raised. A Motion was brought forward in a speech of considerable length by the Gentleman who I moved it, and immediately upon the conclusion of that speech a Member of the Legislative Assembly got up to make a reply. But not one word of that reply was allowed to be heard, and a Division was taken without any remarks from anybody except the Mover of the Motion. Now, I maintain that the same thing might happen in regard to any objectionable matter introduced into this House by some hon. Member whose Friends are in a majority, and who introduced it on a Wednesday with the consent of his Friends. As soon as the speeches of the Mover and Seconder were finished it would be possible to put the Question and to close the discussion. This would be prevented if the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), to afford opportunities for debate on all Motions that may be moved, is accepted; but otherwise I am of opinion that we must fall back on something of this kind. I trust that my hon. Friend will persist with his Amendment, and that he will take the sense of the House upon it by a Division.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I have listened attentively to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and his explanation of the change of front on the part of the Government is certainly of a somewhat singular character. But, in my opinion, I do not think it a proper principle to substitute the personality of the Presiding Officer of this House for the written law. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman who presides in the Chair is always a man of high character and experience; but I cannot see how we can have from him personally the same guarantee in regard to the performance of his duties in the Chair as we should have by the written words of the law. I maintain that the principle favoured by the Government—this golden principle of the personality of the Speaker—is of a
    924
    highly invidious and dangerous character. Let me remind the Government that all the privileges of this country have been fought and won by opposition to this principle of personality. If the principle of a Sovereign is to be entertained at all it would be as well to dispense with this House altogether, and go back to the good old times when the Sovereign had complete control over the State. The Tory Pary, when not in Office, proposed that on a first Motion, or Order of the Day alone, no clôture should be applied. The Tory Party were then in a minority in this House, and that was the proposal they made in the Select Committee. Now, however, they turn round and say—"We have discovered a much more splendid principle—namely, that the Speaker shall be the judge whether the Question has been adequately discussed or not." I would ask what the opinion of the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin)—who always opposed the clôture—is with regard to the proposal of the Government? I do not think he was a Member of the Select Committee; but I should like to point out to him what may happen under this proposal of clôture. A debate upon a first Order may have been carried on up to 10 o'clock at night, when the Order is disposed of and the second Order reached. We may have an excited Speaker in the Chair, although I am far from saying that the Speaker would ever be excited. Then suppose that at 11 or half-past 11 o'clock the Speaker was of opinion that the second Order of the Day had been adequately discussed, and he was prepared to take a Division, a proposition to apply the clôture would then be made, and by this means you would secure the manufacture of what is called "the evident sense of the House." That would be very easily manufactured by a number of Tory Members—Hallobolooists I think I may call them—coming for the special purpose of getting up a row. With a man of excited temperament in the Chair, a most unsatisfactory state of things might be brought about. Take, for instance, the Judicature (Ireland) Bill, which was on the Paper last night. It is a measure of great public importance. Suppose it had been down as the second Order of the Day, and suppose it was ripe for discussion at 2 o'clock in the morning, which was the hour at which

    925
    it was reached. I would put it to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can believe that proper justice would have been done to the Representatives of Irish opinion by taking that measure at 2 o'clock in the morning, providing that the Government were anxious to push it forward and we were desirous of resisting it? Would it have been fair, in such a case, to have imposed the clôture? Yet that is what may happen, and you will either have Gentlemen on the Tory Benches getting up an altercation with the Speaker, or whispering in his ear. I do not say that you will have that state of affairs; it is altogether foreign to our present mode of Procedure; but what I maintain is that you may have it, and in the year 1900 it might be most unfortunate for the Parliament of the day to have men going behind the Chair and whispering in the ear of the Speaker. When once you have begun this unfortunate system you will open the door to a great deal of abuse, and. you may constantly have the Speaker pronouncing an opinion that a state of things has arisen which would justify the clôture. Therefore, the only safeguard we can have is that the clôture shall only be applied to the first and second Orders of the Day unless the third Order shall have been taken up at a reasonable hour of the night. My hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) has proposed an Amendment to this Rule in terms of great moderation, and he said very little as to the change of front which has been made by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and which shows so strong a contrast between their present attitude and that which they took up last year. But the moderation of my hon. Friend ought to lead to a greater desire on the part of the Government to accept the principle of his Amendment. If they are unable to accept its exact terms, I think I can suggest a method by which the proposition of my hon. Friend can be carried out, not, perhaps, with the same effectiveness as if it remained unmutilated, but in a form which he might not be unwilling to accept. My suggestion is this—to add after the word "debate," at the end of the first clause, the words—
    "Provided, That the clôture shall not be applied to any Order of the Day or Notice of Motion after 10 o'clock, after the first Notice of Motion or Order of the Day has been under discussion."
    926
    I think that would meet the view which my hon. Friend has in proposing this Amendment, and at the same time remove some of the disabilities which have been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Having been a Member of the Select Committee, I am able to say that nobody worked more hard upon it than my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast, except, perhaps, the First Lord of the Treasury. Everybody admired the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman attended to the discharge of his duties, and watched with assiduousness, for the benefit of his Party, every proposal that was submitted. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has left out of his mind the fact that the Conservative Party may some day or other be out of Office again? Perhaps he expects that the transcendent genius of the Tory Party will enable them to keep the ship afloat for an interminable time. We were struck with the business capacity of the right hon. Gentleman in the Committee? Why, then, does he not display the same business capacity in this House? There was a Whip issued when this particular Amendment was proposed in the Committee. The Tory Party were exceedingly anxious that it should be adopted. So anxious were they that the Irish Members were whipped up, and the Amendment was carried by our votes. As a matter of fact, it was only carried by a majority of 1, and that one was myself, for I undertook a long journey in order to vote for the proposal of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. My labours seem now to have been altogether thrown away, and we appear to have wasted our sweetness on a desert Committee. Having enabled right hon. Gentlemen to effect all they desired, now that they are in power they fling us overboard. I trust that under the circumstances the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will be prepared to meet us in the same spirit as that which he manifested in the Committee. The Irish Members were then acting as an auxiliary of the Tory Party against the right hon. Member for Derby. We knew that that right hon. Gentleman was extremely anxious for more stringency than the Tory Party were willing to assent to. We were then opposing even a mild form of amendment of our Rules. Perhaps we

    927
    were wrong. It might possibly be desirable that we should have greater stringency in the Rules of this House when we get into power, and then right hon. Gentlemen opposite may find that a very unfortunate state of things exists. I am afraid there will be no more convenient manufacturers of the "evident sense of the House" than the Irish Party under a Home Rule Government. I can well conceive, if this Amendment is rejected, the vehemence which on some other occasion my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast and other Irish Members will exhibit, and the turbulent spirit they will display in shouting down some rising Member of the Tory Party and calling for the clôture. I can imagine my hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), or some other experienced Member of the Irish Party, sitting in the Chair and dealing with the Amendments which may be proposed by the Tory Party.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to keep strictly to the Amendment, which is to confine the closure to questions proposed in reference to the first or second Order of the Day, or a Motion standing first or second on the Notice Paper of the House.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I have no desire to detain the House longer. All I have attempted to point out is the desirability of securing full and complete discussion, by whatever means it may be effected. What I wish to see is the adoption of the proposal of my hon. Friend in principle—that without adequate debate no clôture shall be applied, except to a question arising out of the first or second Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion. I trust that the First Lord of the Treasury will endeavour by some means to indicate what his views on the matter are.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. Member for North Longford, who has just sat down, has described how my unfortunate proposals for the clôture in the Committee upstairs were defeated by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, who, when he found that it was impossible to exclude the clôture altogether, adroitly introduced into it limitations which made it utterly worthless and unworkable. Hon. Members from Ireland have always been openly and altogether opposed to the clôture, and of course they would natu-
    928
    rally support any Amendment proposed by the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, the object of which was to destroy the working efficiency of the clôture as proposed by the late Government. I am very sorry they succeeded in the Committee in, practically speaking, making the proposal which was intended to facilitate the Business of the House, I will not say absurd, but at all events unworkable. Having, for my own part, a desire to institute a sincere and workable closure, I did my best to resist that proposal; but the alliance of right hon. Gentlemen opposite with the Irish Members was too strong for me, as it had been on a former occasion. An alliance of this kind has on more occasions than one upset Governments, and therefore it was quite possible that it might upset the closure; and that was really what they succeeded in doing about a year ago. But I adhere to my former opinion on the subject. I think the Amendments then introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland were very bad Amendments, and I opposed them. Hon. Members from Ireland were consistent in supporting them, and they are consistent in supporting a similar Amendment now. I am consistent in opposing the Amendment now, and the only persons who are absolutely inconsistent are Her Majesty's Government, who are abandoning their previous proposals.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 209: Majority 126.—(Div. List, No. 32.)
    MR. MOLLOY: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) I beg to move the Amendment which stands in. his name—to insert after "proposed" the words "and opportunity afforded for debate thereon." The object is to provide that whenever a Question has been proposed in the House it shall not be in the power of this, or any future Government, to close the discussion without allowing any opportunity for criticism to those who may feel disposed to make it. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith), in the course of his observations the other night, stated frankly that it was not his intention—and he could not believe that it would be the intention of any Government—to exercise any power placed

    929
    in their hands in an arbitrary manner. The right hon. Gentleman subsequently stated that he intended to look into the matter and see what words could be introduced as a safeguard upon a point which we looked upon as one of the greatest dangers of this Rule. Such words of limitation have not yet been introduced into the Rule. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has had time to consider the qualified assurance which he gave to the House on the subject or not. Of course, if he is in the position to say that after the remarks which have been made in the House on this particular point he sees the value of the criticism which has been offered, and is prepared to insert some such qualification as is stated in this Amendment, I should have no object in pressing the Amendment further; but the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman was not absolutely definite, and, therefore, I move the Amendment in order to afford him an opportunity of explaining the course he intends to pursue. In future it is quite possible that this enormous power may be in the hands of a Government who may be less generous and less just in their action than the present Government. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say that he is prepared to carry out substantially the qualified assurance he gave the other night, so that I may be spared the necessity of going further with this Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in line 1, by inserting, after the word "proposed," the words, "and opportunity afforded for Debate thereon."—(Mr. Molloy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I have no hesitation whatever in giving the assurance which the hon. Gentleman asks for—that there is no wish on the part of the Government to stifle debate, or to prevent adequate discussion, on any question which may be brought before the House; but I am of opinion that if these words are inserted they will tend still further to delay and hinder and protract the progress of Public Business. The Government will undertake to introduce words which will fully protect freedom of debate. It is their intention to make
    930
    a proposal based very much on the suggestions of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Wells Division of Somersetshire (Sir Richard Paget), and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth), who desires to provide that there shall be such discussion secured for the minority that in the opinion of the Speaker and Chairman of Committees is necessary to preserve the privileges of hon. Members of this House. There is no desire to interfere with them in any shape whatever. I have so strong an opinion on the subject, that if I felt that those Rules could be used by any Government to put a stop to proper discussion so as to enable them to pass a measure by a simple majority, I would be no party to it. I do not believe, however, that these proposals involve anything of the kind. They are framed solely with a view to forwarding the Business of the House in a reasonable and practical manner, and I believe their operation will be to secure time for the discussion of questions that are now wholly neglected, and to facilitate the progress of Business which cannot at present be undertaken at all. I trust that after this assurance the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment, and allow us to proceed with the further Amendments that remain on the Paper. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House that I should read the Amendment now standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Somersetshire. It is as follows:—
    "A Member rising in his place may move 'That the Question be now put,' and if it shall appear to the Chair that, having due regard to the rights of the minority, it is proper that the sense of the House, or of the Committee, should be taken, as to whether or not the subject has been adequately discussed; he shall so inform the House or the Committee, and, in such case, shall forthwith put the said Question 'That the Question be now put,' which shall be decided without Amendment or Debate."
    I do not bind myself to accept those identical words but I will bind myself to accept the spirit involved in them, and also in the Amendment of the right hon. Member for North Hants—
    "That, in giving the consent of the Chair, the Speaker or the Chairman (as the case may be) shall have regard to the general sense of the House or of the Committee, and likewise to the fair and reasonable privileges of the minority."
    Our only object is to secure that there

    931
    should be such an amount of discussion as in the judgment of the House will secure a reasonable and fair elucidation of any question brought before us.
    MR. WHITBREAD: I am afraid we are going on too rapidly. The right hon. Gentleman says he is prepared to adopt substantially the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Somersetshire. I think it now becomes necessary for the Government to tell us what are the words they intend to adopt, because the words proposed by the hon. Baronet and those proposed by the right hon. Member for North Hants, which the Government also intend to adopt, are very different. As the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has just told us that he intends to accept the spirit of both, I think he ought, in fairness, to give us the exact words.
    DR. COMMINS: We enjoy at present the right of debate—a right not depending on any casual Member standing up in his place and moving that the debate be closed, but a right depending on the grant of liberty of speech in this House which we have enjoyed from time immemorial, in conjunction with a wise discretion exercised by the Chair in regard to the manner in which everybody may exercise that right. It is now proposed to take that right away from us, and to leave the liberties of individuals; nay, more, even of Parties, in this House, entirely at the mercy of the First Lord of the Treasury, or somebody else who may bring forward a Motion for the prevention of further debate. I should like to know, if we are to be allowed adequate debate, what means of securing it can be suggested better than those proposed in the Amendment which has been placed upon the Paper by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). Is it desired to take away all opportunity for debate? If it is not intended in any circumstances that may arise to take away all opportunity of debate, and to deprive Members, practically, of all liberty of speech—if it is not intended to be a weapon to silence hon. Members, and take away all the ancient Privileges of this House, what objection can there be to the introduction of these words? The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury says—"Trust me with this weapon for closing your mouths; trust me with this gagging apparatus; but
    932
    you may be sure that I shall never put it in force unless the circumstances are such as to require the use of some such stringent measure? If it is not intended to make use of this gag, why should we hand it over to the right hon. Gentleman or to any other Government? If it is not intended to stop discussion before there has been an adequate debate, why ask for power to do so? There was never a tyrant in the world who did not maintain that the tyrannic power he exercised was for the benefit of the people he ruled. From Nero downwards I never heard of any tyrant who did not assert that the most severe of his measures were measures that were forced upon him by the exigencies of the case; and if we pass these Rules, we shall have no security that they will be exercised in a rational and proper way, and without injury to the liberties of those whom it may be desired to over-ride. Her Majesty's Government say they will never use such a power at all; but what may happen when there is strong political feeling and great Party heat upon some great measure before the House—a measure, perhaps, endangering the existence of the Government, or some measure which the Government are earnestly bent on pushing forward against the wish of a large minority of the House? It is not in quiet days like these, and in comparatively unimportant circumstances, that a Rule of this kind is wanted; but it may be found desirable to use it on an occasion when the heat of debate is greater than usual, owing to the deep national importance of the question under consideration. We want an explicit declaration on the Rules of the House to which we can appeal, and ask the judgment of the Chair. We are prepared to trust your impartiality, Sir, and we wish to have this declaration; otherwise the liberty of the individual may be taken away, and the liberty of this House. We desire the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to exhibit in something more than general professions of good-will and respect for our liberties that he intends to carry out what is proposed by this Amendment, either by accepting it now, or stating that he is prepared to accept something equivalent.
    MR. T. P. GILL: I should like to hear some explanation of the

    933
    effect of the acceptance by the Government of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Wells Division of Somerset (Sir Richard Paget).
    MR. W. H. SMITH: The Amendment of the hon. Baronet will require some modification, but I will give the House the full meaning of the alteration which we propose to make. It is intended to give the Speaker and the Chairman a complete veto on the Motion made to put in operation the clôture, on the ground that it may be an abuse of the Rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority; and in order to provide that the Chair shall inform the House that in the opinion of the House the subject should no longer be discussed. In this way the closure will be put on the responsibility of the mover, subject to the veto of the Speaker or the Chairman, who will be able to say that that veto is given on the ground that the Motion is either an abuse of the Rules of the House or an infringement of the rights of the minority, and that the subject should not be further discussed.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: Would not the words of the Amendment proposed have the effect of excluding the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), which is a little further down on the Paper, and which proposes to leave out the words "If the consent of the Chair has been previously obtained?"
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury finds himself unable to state to the House offhand the terms of his Amendment, and that being so, a fortiori, it must be extremely difficult for other hon. Members of the House to understand his proposal. Everyone must feel the preponderating importance of the Amendment we are discussing. Let me call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the position in which he has placed the House. An Amendment is moved in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), which Amendment, as well as that of the hon. Member for Bedford, raises the distinct question of whether the consent of the Chair shall or shall not be required. These two Amendments have been on the Paper for some days in succession,
    934
    and to-day, for the first time, we see on the Paper an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Somerset (Sir Richard Paget). We have had hardly any time to consider that Amendment, although it may absolutely exclude us from discussing the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bedford. Then, whilst we are endeavouring to find out the meaning of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, down comes the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury and proposes an Amendment to the Amendment, the terms of which he cannot give to the House. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is the last man in the world who would wish to take an unfair advantage of a political opponent; but if he desired to take advantage of the natural lack of alacrity of his opponents to understand an Amendment not on the Paper, he could not have done more than he has done. One of my hon. Friends proposes that we should adjourn for an hour. If the right hon. Gentleman will consent to such adjournment, and will undertake, at the expiration of an hour, to understand his own Amendment and explain it to the House, our position would be clear. At the present moment we are in a perfect fog.
    MR. SCLATER - BOOTH: I confess I should prefer the Amendment as I originally put it on the Paper. The Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Somerset does not appear to me particularly happy or complete, and even if that objection could not be taken, they are not the words the Government are finally prepared to adopt.
    MR. SPEAKER: There is great inconvenience in discussing an Amendment on a subsequent part of the Paper, and I would suggest to the House that the discussion should now be taken on the first words of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Wells Division of Somersetshire (Sir Richard Paget)—namely, "A Member rising in his place." That would not preclude the subsequent Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I appeal to the hon. Member who has moved the Amendment now before the House and intimated his willingness not to press it on to-night on my being prepared to give

    935
    an undertaking. I have not moved anything, nor has the hon. Baronet (Sir Richard Paget) yet moved anything, and I, therefore, do not know that I am quite in Order in referring to what we may subsequently propose, but if the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) will withdraw his Amendment we will meet him in the sense I have described, and this undertaking, I think, will fully meet the engagement I have entered into. We shall then approach the first words of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Somersetshire, which practically raises the question in the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford. I understand that the hon. Gentleman objects to the interposition of the Chair. Well, the words of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet are, "if it shall appear to the Chair;" and, if the Amendment of the hon. Baronet precedes that of the hon. Member for Bedford, the latter will be able to obtain his point by challenging these words I have quoted. I should be prepared, if it were in Order to do so, to postpone the Amendment of the hon. Baronet until we have taken that of the hon. Member for Bedford; but that is a matter for the House to consider, and is a matter concerning the Order of Procedure of which you, Mr. Speaker, are the best judge. I would point out that I am not entirely responsible for the difficulty that has occurred. When the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork is removed we shall be in a position to deal with the greater question that has been raised.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman suggests that the general discussion as to the interposition of the Chair should be taken on the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford, and I must say that that appears to me the natural and proper course. If the House agrees with, the hon. Member, there is an end of the question; but if, on the other hand, it differs from him, then would be the time to consider what modifications should be introduced into the Rule as at present proposed.
    MR. MOLLOY: On the question of the withdrawal of this Amendment I am placed in rather a serious difficulty. I said I would withdraw it if the engagements of the right hon. Gentleman
    936
    were fulfilled; but I naturally meant fulfilled in the sense of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. If I were to withdraw the Amendment, it would be altogether gone, and I do not know what the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would be. It is now a quarter past 8 o'clock, and you, Mr. Speaker, will in a short time be leaving for the usual interval. I think in that interval the terms of the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman should be shown to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford, in which way some conclusion might be arrived at. If I were to withdraw the Amendment now I should be guilty of the foolish act of giving up a bird in the hand for two in the bush.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): There are three proposals before the House—that of the hon. Member for Cork; that of the hon. Baronet the Member for Somersetshire; and, finally, the largest question of all, whether there is to be any interposition of the Chair at all. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend opposite that we shall gain time by deciding first whether the Chair is to interpose at all. After that is decided we could proceed to consider what other safeguards might be put in. We could leave the subject of adequate discussion until the question of the interposition of the Speaker is decided.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The proposal is that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bedford should be moved as an Amendment to the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for Somersetshire.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The most simple course would be to go on with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Somersetshire, formally raising the question contained in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bedford on the words "and if it shall appear to the Chair."
    MR. WHITBREAD: The hon. Member's Amendment is an Amendment in itself, and, if that is taken, I shall not have an opportunity of raising my Amendment at all. The Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Somersetshire raises a variety of issues; but I only desire to raise one, and it would be a much more simple

    937
    course to allow my Amendment to be put as it appears on the Notice Paper.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: It is impossible to take the Amendment of the ton. Baronet the Member for Somersetshire in a different order to that in which it appears on the Notice Paper. If the hon. Baronet is not here when his name is called, the other Amendments can be proceeded with.
    MR. SEXTON: As the House has got into an inextricable entanglement, I would ask you, Sir, if you would be kind enough to follow a practical suggestion and, as this is about the usual hour for you to retire, now allow the House half-an-hour of recess?
    COLONEL NOLAN: The Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Somersetshire (Sir Richard Paget) will include so much new matter that I think it would be well for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to move the adjournment of the debate. If we do not adopt such a course but deal with the Amendment in a haphazard manner, we shall get into a state of interminable chaos.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: It seems to me there is more misapprehension than real mistake in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Amendment before the House is that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork. When that is disposed of, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bedford will come on for consideration. He will not move it in the form in which it stands on the Paper, as that would now be impossible, but I would give him a fair opportunity by moving the Amendment of the hon. Member for Somersetshire as far as this—
    "A Member rising in his place may claim to more 'That the question he now put,' and unless it shall appear to the Chair that such Motion is an abuse to the Rules of the House."
    What we desire to affirm is that the Chair shall have a positive duty to discharge in connection with putting the clôture to the House. That is the position of the Government; but the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford wishes to dissent from that view, and it appears to me that he will be able to do so, and to move his Amendment when we arrive at the words "unless it shall appear to the Chair." The hon. Member can move to leave out these words,
    938
    and such Motion will be equivalent lo that he has put upon the Paper—namely, to strike out the words "if the consent of the Chair has been previously obtained." I may say to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite that I undertake to bring up words to meet the case of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Somerset.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I would suggest that the simplest way out of the impasse would be for the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to use his influence with, the hon. Baronet the Member for Somersetshire to get him to withdraw his Amendment, so as to enable that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford to be proceeded with. That will be the most natural course to take, for the reason that anything the hon. Baronet desires to do can be equally well done if the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford is defeated. It seems to me that we have here an ingenious manœuvre on the part of the hon. Baronet the Member for Somersetshire to obtain precedence over the hon. Member for Bedford.
    SIR RICHARD PAGET: I object to the right hon. Gentleman imputing motives. He says this is an "ingenious manœuvre." I can assure him that I contemplated no such thing. I saw a difficulty, and this Amendment suggested itself to my mind as likely to overcome it. I framed my Amendment myself and put it down myself, and it should be decided on its merits. I am not prepared to withdraw my Amendment, at any rate without further consideration.
    MR. SPEAKER: It might, perhaps, be convenient for me to make a suggestion, though I do not say that what I propose will be sufficient. If the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Somersetshire were moved as a substantial Amendment, any Amendment could be moved to it, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford could move to strike out of the Amendment words similar in effect to those he proposes to strike out of the Resolution—the words "unless it shall appear to the Chair." That would raise the whole question of the intervention of the Chair—the whole point in dispute.
    MR. WHITBREAD: But, Sir, the Amendment I should have to

    939
    move to amend, it seems, would not be the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Somersetshire, but that Amendment coupled with one by the right hon. Gentleman who sits behind him (Mr. Sclater-Booth). The Government put this before us, and ask us to discuss it at a minute's notice, without seeing the words. The most convenient course, it seems to me, would be for the hon. Baronet to postpone his Amendment, and allow me to move the one I have had on the Paper for a long time. It is not unlikely that we should finish the discussion on that to-night, then tomorrow the hon. Baronet could put his Amendment on the Paper, and we should be in a position to give it proper consideration.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The difficulty in the way of adopting that course is that we cannot get to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford without passing the words, "a Motion may be made," which were in the original Rule, but which will not be in the Rule as the Government propose that it shall stand. If we take the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bedford, and it is negatived, the words "if the consent of the Chair has been previously obtained," would stand part of the Rule. That is not the present proposal of the Government. I am afraid there is no possible alternative but to adopt the usual course of taking the Amendments as they stand on the Paper.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: Would it not be possible to postpone the Government Amendment, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House just now suggested? It would be found very easy to bring it on after the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bedford.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): There is a difficulty in the way of the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, and the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. M. J. Kenny), whereas there is none in the way of the course suggested by you yourself, Sir, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. The plan proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House would enable the hon. Member for Bedford to raise the whole question he desires to
    940
    raise. The words the Government would propose to move are—
    "A Member rising in his place may claim to move 'That the Question be now put,' and unless it shall appear to the Chair that such Motion is an abuse of the Rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority, and the Chairman shall so inform the House or Committee, thereupon the Question, 'That the Question be now put,' shall be put forthwith, and decided upon without Amendment or Debate."
    The whole question of whether or not the Chair shall be allowed to interpose can be raised on that.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: What is it we are going to amend—the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Somersetshire on the Paper, or some shadowy Amendment to be substituted for that, to be evolved out of the inner consciousness of the Government? We cannot carry the words of the Government Amendment in our memory.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I should be glad to take the Division on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bedford were it possible; but Mr. Speaker has ruled that it cannot be taken. Let us then proceed to dispose of the Amendments which remain on the Paper in their natural order; and then, if it be possible to meet the views of the hon. Member for Bedford, and to give him the clear issue he wishes to raise, I can only say that I shall be most ready to do it.
    MR. WHITBREAD: Would it not be possible for me to move to omit all the words of the Resolution down to the words, "consent of the Chair having been previously obtained?" That would leave a door open for the hon. Baronet's Amendment, and allow me, in the first place, to raise a clear issue.
    SIR RICHARD PAGET: I have no desire to prevent a clear issue being raised; but it can be done in the way that you, Sir, have already pointed out. If the Amendments are taken in the sequence in which they are on the the Paper, the hon. Member for Bedford can take issue on my Amendment at the point where it breaks away from his own.
    MR. P. J. POWER: Any confusion that may have arisen is altogether owing to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House himself, for a more clouded statement than that which has fallen from him I never heard. He proposes to amend the Amendment

    941
    of the hon. Baronet the Member for Somersetshire, and then to invite Amendments to his Amendment from this side of the House. The more the subject is considered the more it will be seen how necessary it is to have the words of the Government proposal on that Paper. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork, I should think it would commend itself to anyone who cares for the freedom of debate. If the Rules are passed as they are the independence of the Chair will to some extent suffer, and we shall be unable to look to it for protection, as we have been accustomed to do in the past.
    MR. SEXTON: The Amendments of the hon. Member for Bedford and the hon. Baronet the Member for Somersetshire could be brought abreast by allowing the words of the original Resolution to stand down to "made," in line 2. After that word it would be competent for the hon. Baronet to move, "by a Member rising in his place." The hon. Member for Bedford would then be able to move first.
    MR. GOSCHEN: If a majority of the House voted for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bedford we should not be able to take a clear issue on the other point. The issue the hon. Member desires to raise could be taken on the words, "unless it shall appear to the Chair," in the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Somersetshire.
    MR. SPEAKER: If the Amendment now before the House were withdrawn, I should call upon the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to move his Amendment, and on that the hon. Member for Bedford could move his Amendment. I now leave the Chair for the usual time.
    MR. MOLLOY: Mr. Speaker, I hardly know what position we are in. I proposed an Amendment, and thereupon certain suggestions were made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. In fact, I appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to put me in a position of discussing an Amendment if the assurances he had given to the House were going to be fulfilled. The right hon. Gentleman then rose, and we have been occupied nearly an hour and a-half upon an Amendment which he is about to introduce. So far as I know, the last proposition was that of the hon. Member for Bedford.
    MR. SPEAKER: The course that has been pursued has been somewhat irregular. The only course now is to proceed with the Amendment on the Paper until we reach the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Somerset.
    MR. MOLLOY: I cannot withdraw the Amendment I have proposed, because no agreement has been come to concerning the safeguards which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has announced his intention of introducing. The power which is given under the Rule as it now stands is the power of crushing out debate altogether. It is a matter for the serious consideration of the House whether they are prepared to give, not only to this Government, but to future Governments in this House, the power and the right to prevent all discussion. It must be remembered that we are not passing a Rule which is to obtain during the present or the next Session only; we are now legislating for the future.
    MR. SPEAKER: This is a second time the hon. Gentleman has spoken on his own Amendment. It is quite irregular for him to do so.
    MR. MOLLOY: You will remember, Sir, that you called upon me.
    MR. SPEAKER: I called upon the hon. Gentleman because I thought he was going to withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. MOLLOY: I beg your pardon.
    MR. PARNELL: I desire to say, Mr. Speaker, that in my judgment the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House is entirely insufficient and illusory, and not such a one as would justify me in withdrawing any of my Amendments which propose to go in the direction of seeing that there shall be ample discussion. This Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Birr (Mr. Molloy) has moved for me becomes, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the safeguards which the right hon. Gentleman intends to propose when the time is reached, more than ever necessary. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he does not object to affording opportunity for debating before the closure is applied; but if he does not so object, why does he not put it in his Rule. We examine this Rule from top to bottom and we do not find a single safeguard in it; we simply see the Members of the House

    943
    of Commons and the rights of minorities left, or proposed to be left, at the mercy of the Ministry and the majority of the day. Sir, if this Rule is passed, and if we are beaten in our Amendments, we shall die fighting hard. The right hon. Gentleman has not met us in the way we might have expected he would have met us from his antecedents and from his courteous demeanour. I fear the right hon. Gentleman has been led away from the paths of conciliation and concession to his political opponents since the advent into this House of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen). I can only liken the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to Faust, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Mephistopheles; and I fear very much that the counsels and seductions of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer have already produced their effect upon the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury; short as has been the time since the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has occupied a seat at the elbow of the First Lord of the Treasury. If the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had been told five years ago, or even last autumn, that he was going to agree to such a Rule as this, much less that he was going to propose it himself, his hair would have stood on end in horror at the suggestion. But, Sir, when Members of Parliament get into Office their old nature foresakes them and they become different beings. They seem to forget that a time may come when they may be in Opposition, and when they will bitterly regret that the love of power prompted them to throw away the safeguards of the rights of minorities. The minorities in the House ought to strive for such protection as I propose; even the so-called Unionist Party, those who have announced that it is above all things their intention to have one Parliament, and to have Irishmen represented, and fully represented, in that Parliament—have shown that they look upon Irish Members as being not so good as themselves, as being unworthy of having the same measure of justice meted out to them as ought to be meted out to an English Party in Opposition. I have seen that the fair play, and the justice, and the toleration which
    944
    you extend to your British political opponents are not extended to your Irish political opponents. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members will have full opportunity of debating this question, and I think that if they have got anything to say against the reason and justice of what I am urging they ought to say it when the proper time comes, and address observations to the Chair instead of making inarticulate noises. So far during the course of this debate they seem to have engaged in a conspiracy of silence, and therefore they are not entitled to interrupt me, I maintain that in consequence of the attitude always maintained towards the Irish Party, it is our duty to leave no stone unturned in trying to impress the conscience of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House as to the necessity of inserting suitable safeguards in this Rule. We know how this Rule will operate. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will bring in a Coercion Bill, and push it through the House by main force regardless of our protests. Now is our time, before we have been gagged and silenced by the action of the Front Bench and the tyrannical power of the majority, to rise and struggle, and to strike and resist with all our might and main before this Rule is passed. I should like to know once more where is the urgency of or necessity for this new Rule; for I must confess I am totally ignorant on the subject. I trust that, in view of the fact that the Amendment as announced by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House contains no single word or suggestion whatever that there should be adequate debate, the right hon. Gentleman will see the necessity of agreeing to the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Birr; and of modifying his subsequent proposal in such a way as to secure that fair play for minorities, which is entirely absent from the Rule as it stands.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Government are logically committed to the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) by the words which they propose to add guaranteeing the rights of minorities; though, it is also apparent that while there are some minorities they will protect, there are other minorities they will not protect.

    945
    The Government have made great strides in respect to closure; last year they were only favourable to its application at half-past 12 o'clock at night, and at half-past 5 on Wednesday afternoons, and only at these times upon certain Motions. But the advance which has been made since last year absolutely amounts to this, that the closure may be put in force at any stage or moment, and almost upon any subject before the House; after one or, perhaps, two persons have discussed a subject the closure can be applied. It seems to me, therefore, that the words suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cork are perfectly consistent with the spirit evinced by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, and in my opinion would carry out the right hon. Gentleman's object better than his own words.
    MR. CHILDERS: The Amendment which has been proposed by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) is a very simple one, and I think may be discussed by us now without regard to the controversy which may follow as to the action of the Speaker. I, therefore, treat the Amendment as one proposed in reference to the proposed Rule as it now stands, and I am bound to say that it appears to me, looking at it calmly in that way, that the Amendment expresses a true principle. The object of the Rule—as I think it will be agreed by both sides—is this, that when a question has been fully debated it should be in the power of the House, with or without certain safeguards, to close debate. If that is the object, it is only right it should be stated that the closure may be applied only after the question has been so debated. It should not be, at any rate, the effect of the Rule that the closure should be applied when only, perhaps, one speaker had spoken, and when, clearly, there has been nothing which could possibly be called debate. If that be so, surely it is well, in providing for what we mean, to introduce some such words as are now proposed. They cannot possibly do any harm; I think they express really what is the intention of the House, and that intention ought to be expressed if this Rule is to be accepted by all Parties in the House. I am certainly disposed to say that the words proposed by the hon. Member for
    946
    Cork are fair and reasonable, and that we should do well to accept them.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: As we understand these Rules they are intended to act against deliberate obstruction, and against undue prolixity. But the silence of hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches, and the refusal on their part to discuss this Amendment, very clearly shows what is the intention of the Government. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they contend that a decision ought to be taken without due opportunity being afforded for debate? That is practically what they say by their silence. If they think so, let them have the courage of their convictions. This is how we understand the refusal of the Government to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). I trust my hon. Friend will go to a Division. If we are beaten, we shall be beaten, but at least we shall have an opportunity of protesting, not only against this new theory or doctrine which is set up, but against this conspiracy of silence which refuses even to discuss it. It is all very well to talk about safeguards against obstruction and prolixity, but we want safeguards against the majority riding roughshod over the minority.
    MR. CHAPLIN: We also want a safeguard, and we find a safeguard in the words of the Rule, "If the consent of the Speaker has been previously obtained." I put it to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) whether he really believes that any Gentleman who maybe elected to the Speaker's Chair will arbitrarily allow this Rule to be put in force in regard to a subject which ought to be debated?
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: It seems that what we require is that in some form or other there should be safeguards for adequate and sufficient debate. I do not express an opinion with regard to the wording of the clause, or as regards the question whether this is the proper point at which such a clause should be introduced; but I do desire to express my opinion that in principle the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) is right. We should put it in such words as imply that when the Speaker gives a decision that decision shall be that in the opinion of the

    947
    Speaker sufficient debate has been had.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Lord JOHN MANNERS): I think the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) can hardly have been in the House during the discussion earlier in the evening, or else he would know that the views of the Government were fairly expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. There is no disposition on the part of the Government to shirk this question. The view of the Government has been stated most clearly and most distinctly. We admit that safeguards are required, and the safeguards which we propose have been clearly indicated, and in the opinion of her Majesty's Government the intervention of the Speaker is most certain to act as a safeguard of a proper and most legitimate character, and one most certain to be exercised for the due protection of minorities in the debates of this House. I have noticed in this debate that several hon. Gentlemen have insinuated that occasions may arise when Speakers may be unduly influenced, and that the rights of minorities will be sacrificed by the Speaker. I have to speak very frankly on this subject. I have sat now in this House more than 45 years, and I have sat under the Speakership of four different Speakers, every one of whom was selected from the Party with which I had no connection, and against whom I was opposed. Looking back, I say distinctly that—so far as my memory serves me—I have no complaint whatever to make against the impartiality and fairness of any one of those Speakers. I repose the most implicit confidence in the fairness and impartiality of any Speaker who is likely to be selected by the great majority in this House to fill that Chair; and my deliberate conviction is that in the consent or the refusal of the Speaker to permit the closure to be put in force, the minority in this House has the best security which it can have for a fair and legitimate discussion of a question in which it may be concerned.
    MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: I can only account for the statement of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord John Manners) that the views of the Government were clearly stated by the
    948
    right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, by the fact that the noble Lord was not in the House when the views of the Government were made known. I venture to say that the noble Lord is the only person in the House who will stand up and declare that the views of Her Majesty's Government upon this question have been made clear. It is quite evident that everyone was completely muddled by the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, and that the right hon. Gentleman himself was not able to read the notes he had written for the purpose of enabling him to state the views of the Government. The noble Lord has said that guarantees were given by the Leader of the House that the Chair would intervene for the purpose of securing due debate on any subject. Now, that was not at all the promise made to us by the Leader of the House—it was quite of the opposite character to that. It simply went to save the Government from the obstruction which might naturally arise out of a Resolution of this kind if individual Members or minorities in this House had recourse to a practice which the Government wish to retain only for themselves—namely, if minorities should take it into their heads to exercise the privilege of getting up and moving "That the Question be now put." Of course, we have no such guarantee as that which is proposed by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), which, upon the very face of it, is a reasonable guarantee, and one which no argument can be advanced against. So far as I can see, it is quite possible that the very moment that a Question is proposed in this House any hon. Member may stand up and move "That the Question be now put," and the concession which the Leader of the House wishes us to believe he has made to the House as an equivalent for the proposal of the hon. Member for Cork is simply this—that where it appears to the Speaker that the Motion is an abuse of the Privileges of the House—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not confining himself to the Amendment before the House, but to an Amendment to be proposed another day.
    MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: I will only say, in conclusion, that if the Government have any real intention of as-

    949
    suring to hon. Members of this House the right to debate subjects brought forward, I fail to see why they should have any objection to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Cork.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) can be aware of what was said earlier in the evening, because if he had he would not have said, in answer to my Colleague, that we have the safeguard that an opportunity will be afforded for debate in the terms of the Rule as proposed, inasmuch as it is necessary to obtain the consent of the Chair before the closure is applied. [Mr. CHAPLIN: I was not here.] The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, in the course of the somewhat irregular conversation, had promised to amend so as to do away with that consent. The right hon. Gentleman himself did not seem very clear as to the course he intended to pursue; but, at any rate, the only guarantee which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) relies on has clean gone, and therefore I trust we shall have his support in the Lobby.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I congratulate the House on having escaped from a very serious dilemma, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) upon the firmness he showed in demanding to see the Amendment of the Government in black and white before we proceed to discuss it. We are assured that the Rule if allowed to stand as originally drafted, will not be put into execution to the disadvantage of minorities. Upon what grounds are we to trust it will not be put unduly into operation against minorities? We have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith). I am prepared to attach some importance to the assurances of the right hon. Gentleman, judging from the urbanity he has displayed in the conduct of the Business of the House. I have no doubt, so long as the present First Lord of the Treasury occupies his present position on the Front Government Bench, that this Rule will not be unduly put in force against minorities. Now, we are also asked to trust to the Speaker, and we are told that, judging from the impartiality and fairness which you, Mr.
    950
    Speaker, and your immediate Predecessors have shown, the Rule will not be improperly enforced. But we must remember that neither the First Lord of the Treasury nor yourself, Mr. Speaker, will occupy your respective positions always. It has been found necessary in the past for this House and the country to place restrictions upon kings and upon people in high stations, and therefore it is absolutely necessary for the present generation not to abandon their liberties into the hands of any individuals whatever. The noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord John Manners) has said he has had experience of four Speakers, and that they have always been selected from the Party to which he was opposed. But the noble Lord has never had experience of a Radical Speaker; and it is quite possible that in the near future the Radical Party, numerically small at present, may be in a position to elect the Speaker. We have received the assurance that there will be adequate discussion permitted before the Question before the Chair is put; but I hold it does not rest with the First Lord of the Treasury or the Speaker to say when adequate discussion has taken place. It is provided by the Rules that the evident sense of the House should control both the Government and the Speaker. What is the evident sense of the House? Is it the opinion expressed by hon. Members who, when the bell rings, rush in from the Library or the Smoking Boom to outvote those who have paid attention to the course of the debate? Or is the evident sense of the House the opinion of those who return from convivial dinner parties, and with their full-dressed imaginations declare they know more about the subject than those who have been sitting through possibly a wearisome discussion in order to arrive at a just conclusion? The Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork is a very reasonable one, and we can do no better than discuss it to its fullest extent, and then take by a Division what will be the evident sense of the House in regard to it.
    MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: I think that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) has, at any rate, the advantage of being exceedingly opportune. If the object to be attained is that there should be

    951
    adequate debate, it is absolutely necessary that words like the hon. Member's should be introduced in the Rule. There is nothing on which the House can better exercise its talents than the protection of the rights of minorities. I cannot imagine why the Government should object to the addition of these words if they really desire that there should be adequate debate allowed. It appears to me that one of the reasons why the Government are so anxious to prevent the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork being adopted is that they are very recent converts to the closure, and being very recent converts, they are in a fog as to how to put the closure in motion. I hope that even at the last moment the Government will listen to the arguments used and accept this Amendment.
    MR. E. HARRINGTON: Mr. Speaker, it is a notorious fact that many hon. Members who will take part in the Division have not heard one word of the argument. The question at issue is simply whether the House of Commons is going to retain for itself the privilege of discussing any question that is brought legitimately before it. Now, the words of the Amendment are sufficiently elastic to give the right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Treasury Bench ample opportunity of applying the clôture, while, at the same time, they preserve to us some semblance of the rights for which we covenanted when we became Members of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) adopted a very singular course in regard to this Amendment. He had not one word of intelligible argument to offer against the spirit of the Amendment, and yet he said he could not adopt the Amendment. Why? Simply because it was proposed by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). The right hon. Gentleman went on to say the Government would adopt the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Somersetshire (Sir Richard Paget), but in the form they themselves preferred. He got fast in his elucidation of the intentions of the Government, and left the House in complete ignorance of what he really proposed to do. Now, will the House assent to the principle that there must be an opportunity of debate afforded before a Question is put from the Chair? It is all very well to talk about the pro-
    952
    tection that is afforded in the fair dealing of the Speaker or Chairman of Committees. That is a most illusory protection, because there will be the greatest possible temptation to future governments to elect a Party Speaker and a Party Chairman, in order that they may rush their own wishes at a gallop through the House. There can be no reasonable objection to the insertion of the words proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cork. What is the alternative of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to this Amendment? It is that words be inserted, providing that due regard be had to the protection of "the minority." I ask the House to particularly mark the words "the minority." There is no body recognized in the House but the Government and the Opposition. Indeed, I think we should be asked to adopt the words, "minorities and Members of the House," so that "the minority" and the "Government of the day" shall not be the only elements of consideration. I maintain that every hon. Member has inherent rights in the House of Commons. I look upon every Member as a possible minority in the House, and I therefore consider that the rights of individual Members ought to be protected. We do not ask, by this Amendment, that the words "after debate, "or after adequate debate," should be inserted; but that the words, "and opportunity afforded for debate thereon," shall be inserted. The House will make a great mistake if it omits to insert these words, which will secure ample opportunity for free debate.
    MR. MAC NEILL: This is the third time I have listened in the hope that a gleam of probability would appear that the right of speech in this House would be fenced around with some kind of safeguard. And again we have been met with what I may call the sole energy of the Government—the energy of silence. The Government are silent. I ask if they are simply mutes following with pretended sorrow the funeral of Constitutional privileges. A time may come when, possibly in this House, we may look above the Gangway and see disastrous incompetency enthroned as statesmanship; while below the Gangway we may see faction take the place of loyalty to Party. I ask where then will be the

    953
    Party who will protect freedom of debate and the expression of opinion? If this opportunity for debate be not given, it is possible that measures of great importance may be passed whilst our mouths are shut. The Ministry of the day may think discussion in this House in times of great international complications is not proper; but I ask if discussion is to be stopped for such a reason. Are the Government in such times to be not merely the libertines, but the autocrats of debate? If that is not the intention of hon. Members I call on them to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    MR. WHITBREAD: I rise, Sir, to express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will expedite the Business before the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already spoken on this question.
    MR. T. M. HEALT: I desire to say a few words with regard to the position in which this House is placed by the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith). The only position in which the right hon. Gentleman has left us after a debate of two hours, in which the Irish Party have unselfishly stood up for liberty of debate in this House, is a position of absolute darkness. We shall ourselves very soon be out of all liberty of debate, so that it matters very little what we do; but, at the same time, we are bound to make a certain stand even though in doing so we show undue devotion to the Conservative Party with whom we have been foolish enough to act in the past, and from whom we have met with a base return. The Government seem to suppose that being on the Treasury Bench they will remain there for ever—such is the state of beatitude of the First Lord of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman is now lying on a bed of roses; last May when he was out of Office and a Member of the Committee on Procedure, he was upon a bed of thorns, and then he was extremely anxious to maintain the rights of minorities, and that nothing should be done to cripple freedom of debate. Again, in 1882, he was asking what security we had in simply appealing to the authority of the Chair. Now he tells my hon. Friend the Member for Cork that he need have no fear, because everything will be safe in the hands of the Speaker;
    954
    we are to place full confidence in the authority of the Chair. The noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord John Manners) seems to suppose that because we have full confidence in the authority of the Chair, we do not need the Amendment of my hon. Friend. But we have no voice in the Election of the Speaker; if we had, we should perhaps have the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) in the Chair. Not that I say, Sir, for one moment that you do not make an excellent substitute.
    MR. SPEAKER: These remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman are scarcely respectful to the Chair.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I should be sorry, Sir, to institute any invidious comparison.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must call on the hon. Gentleman to leave that line of remark.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I shall certainly be most happy to abide by any ruling you may give, Sir. It is suggested by the Government that we should rely upon the authority of the Chair instead of something stated in the written Rules. I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is his objection to import something which will correspond to this into the Rules? It is surely desirable that when Rules are proposed by the Government they should know exactly what they mean; and by refusing to express this in the Rules, they leave open a point which will lead to interminable conflict with regard to matters of the utmost importance. Instead of that confidence which all Parties in the House have in the authority of the Speaker, you will hare conflict with the Chair, and a spirit of criticism with regard to the Chair such as at the present moment we have no idea of. The state of our relations with Mr. Speaker are now of the most happy character, and you propose by refusing to make a written Rule to bring about quite a different state of relations. I hope the Tory Party, however, will remember their Constitutional position in this House, where they have been frequently in minority and will be so again. The Government have not endeavoured to make clear what it is they want; they seem to suppose that we shall infer what that is; but I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to tell us the safeguard he proposes, and to place it on the Paper.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Sir, I do not entirely understand why it is that Her Majesty's Government find it to be their duty to oppose the introduction of these words. I own I should have thought that these words were completely in conformity with the spirit of those Amendments which we are approaching, and with which we have had the distinct intimation that Her Majesty's Government intend to agree. What are these words? They require that there shall be an opportunity for discussion. But that does not imply that there should be discussion. This proposal is simply an intimation to the Chair to the effect that there shall not be that rapidity of action which is entirely to shut out the opportunity of raising discussion if there should be a desire to raise it. It implies that there should be a reasonable pause before the Question is put, in case an hon. Member should wish to discuss any Amendment before the House. The proposal does appear to me completely in the spirit of those Amendments which I hope are about to be settled without any material difference of opinion. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) has, I think with very sound judgment, forborne to introduce the obvious wording of "sufficient opportunity or ample opportunity;" all that he says is that some opportunity should be given for discussion, and I am sure that in supporting the insertion of these words we shall be doing no more than supporting a suggestion which is completely in accordance with the spirit of the Amendments which Her Majesty's Government have given us to understand they are ready to admit.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Sir, I think the right hon. Gentleman, who has been for some time absent from the House, can hardly have any correct idea of the object of the amendment we have now before us. We on this side of the House all desire that, whenever any reasonable proposal is brought forward, an opportunity shall be afforded for its discussion at a reasonable length. But the proposal of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) assumes that on an Amendment of any character proposed in this House there shall be a discussion. What does that
    956
    mean? It means that on every line of every Bill that may be brought forward there shall be discussion; that an amendment may be raised on every item of Supply, and that there shall be a direction to the Speaker that discussion shall be allowed upon every such Amendment. That, Sir, is a suggestion which Her Majesty's Government are wholly unable to accept, and it is one which the right hon. Gentleman and those who think with him have themselves rejected.
    MR. ILLING WORTH: Sir, this House has not finally decided as to whether you should be called upon to take part in the question of the application of the closure otherwise than by simply putting the Question. But surely there can be nothing more moderate than the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). I refuse to admit that there is any reflection on the Chair when it is proposed that there should be some security for the liberty of debate. I think that the highest compliment that can be made to the Speaker of the House is to say that absolute confidence should be placed in him in interpreting the Rules of the House; and I object altogether to the arbitrary power proposed to be given to the Speaker when it is said that there should be no discretion whatever given to him as to whether debate should ensue on any Motion or not. I think the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) is in perfect harmony with the assurance given by the Leader of the House over and over again; and I am amazed that there should be suspicion thrown on the good faith of those hon. Members who have no hesitation in accepting this Amendment. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork is clear enough; there is security given for debate, and liberty for debate; and it will fall upon you, Sir, or your Successors to determine whether that liberty has been abused or not. I should be sorry to pass this Rule without having security given to us that there shall be absolute freedom left in the House to discuss any Question which may come under discussion in the interest of the country. For these reasons, I shall vote with the hon. Member for Cork.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 186; Noes 241: Majority 55.—(Div. List, No. 33.)
    MR. PARNELL: Sir, the Amendment which I now propose to move in this place is intended to provide that there shall be an opportunity afforded for the making of an Amendment before the closure can be applied. As the Resolution now stands, it will be possible, before any discussion takes place on the Main Question, or after discussion has commenced on the Main Question and has proceeded for some little distance, and before any Amendment has been moved to the Main Question, with the leave of the Chair to ask that the Question be now put; and if the House so decide by the necessary majority the Question will be put, and that without any opportunity being accorded for discussion. This will very unjustly affect the right of minorities in two different ways. It will affect it in debate on Bills and abstract Motions, and it will affect it in Committees of the Whole House and in Committee of Supply; but it will more injuriously affect the right of minorities in Committee of Supply and in Committees of the Whole House than in any other way. Let us consider the proceedings that would take place in the case of a Bill in Committee. A clause is moved, the Question is put from the Chair, and the Question "That this clause be added to the Bill" may be put from the Chair; the clôture may be moved on the Question, and the Question may be decided without an opportunity being accorded to any Member of opposing the clause, which may become part of the Bill without any Amendment whatever. Against such an abuse as this it is that I have suggested the adoption of this Amendment. By it provision will be made that the clôture shall not be moved to the original Question, but to the secondary Question. I admit, of course, that all these matters depend very much upon the character, disposition, and feelings of the majority; but those qualities vary month by month and day by day, and they vary also in individuals. You may have a Prime Minister of one sort, and next year you may have a Prime Minister of a different sort; and in the same way, a majority which to-day may be passive, may
    958
    to-morrow be burning with irritation against its opponents. The nature of man is to be carried away with the feelings and impulses of the moment. That is what we have to guard against in these cases; and it is our object to assure that the Rules we are now considering shall not be unfit for the purpose for which they are intended. What are we to understand is the purpose of this Rule? We have to take it from the declarations of Her Majesty's Government and their supporters; and it is, they say, to prevent excessive and protracted, and too prolonged debate; debate originating in the purpose of obstruction; they say that it is not intended to stop Amendments to clauses of Bills, or to Main Questions of any kind. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has repeatedly declared that he would desire that there should be full opportunity afforded to minorities to move Amendments; and I am sure that that would be the desire of the right hon. Gentleman, although he may change his mind, and we at all events are not obliged to believe that he will be always of the same mind as he is to-night. How do we approach this question of affording to minorities the right of moving Amendments? We approach it in view of the Report of the Committee of last Session. It was carefully provided in the Report of that Committee, which was presided over by the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), that there should be no advance upon the power of the closure already possessed under the Rules of the House until the House had been sitting till 12 o'clock at night, and that then the closure should only apply to the Orders which were at the head of the list of Public Business; in other words, it was seen clearly that the power of summary closure, as provided by the Rule before us, was liable to abuse, and the whole right was given to minorities to move their Amendments and speak upon them before the Minister could ask that the closure should be applied. That is the clôture of the Select Committee of 1886, which gave the margin of a whole night to the minority to discuss the Main Question with Amendments. Well, Sir, with all that margin, it was considered to be too stringent and too dangerous by the Party now in Office, and they

    959
    presented a minority Report in accordance with those views. We may assume, that if the late Government had been able to bring forward that Closure Resolution, with its strictly guarded provisions and its safeguards against abuse, that the Representatives of the present Government, including the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, would have strongly protested, and have spent days, and weeks, and months of the time of the House, as they did in 1882, in protesting against the insufficiency of the safeguards which surrounded the Closure Rule, safeguards which we should gladly welcome as being far in excess of what I am asking for under the Amendment which I have placed upon the Paper. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he is acting fairly towards the Opposition in the stern attitude of non possumus which he has taken up on this question? He must see by this time, that his Rule is more far-reaching and more drastic than he had any conception of when this discussion commenced; and that many Members of the House view with alarm the consequences which may result in the absence of all safeguards. Does he think it is in accordance with the traditions of the Conservative Party that a Rule like this—a two-edged weapon—should be passed without some addition that there shall be power to the minority to move Amendments? Does he think that posterity will hold him and his Party blameless in giving away the rights of minorities? After all, this is not a question of a day or a year. The right hon. Gentleman may suppose it is a desirable thing to pass a stringent regulation in order to pass through a severe time; but when he has got that he may find that he is no better off than he was, just as Governments have found that, having got Coercion Acts passed, they have been worse off than before. The right hon. Gentleman should remember that a Minister is only the creature of a day—a gaudy butterfly flying round the lamp of power, who may find his wings singed by the exercise; but, however that may be, the right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the Conservative Party, has important traditions to preserve in this matter. He has to remember that his Party has been, for the last 50 years, in five cases out of six, the Party of minority, and that it will be, in all probability, the
    960
    Party of minority in the future. I invite him to give us a helping hand in the fight we are now making on behalf of minorities. It is not a matter which can affect us for many years. I suppose our time here, however matters may turn out, will be limited; but it is a matter which concerns the Party of the right hon. Gentleman very deeply. This House has many privileges and many rights to guard—rights of property, inherited rights—and I entreat him, while we are on the threshold of this great question, not to turn his back upon this Amendment, but to see that there are inserted in this Rule safeguards for the protection of the rights of minorities such as that which I now beg to move.
    Amendment proposed, in line 1, by inserting after the word "proposed" the words "if no Amendment has been moved thereto."—Mr. Parnell.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Parnell) has made to me a very earnest appeal to endeavour to protect the rights of minorities. I have listened, with very great attention, to the speech of the hon. Gentleman; but I will repeat what I have said in this House on many occasions—that I believe there will be ample security for the rights of minorities in the Rule now before us; and that the Rule is simply directed against that licence of speech which has existed in this House for several Sessions past. I understand that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman will require that the closure should be moved upon every Amendment, however frivolous, however frequently repeated in substance, so that Amendments in Supply on items of the most minute character would necessitate repeated Divisions before the ultimate decision of the Committee could be taken. I say to that what an hon. Member has already said—that no Member of the House would dare to propose the closure of debate arbitrarily without giving the House ample and sufficient opportunity for debate. On the other hand, no one standing in the position which I occupy ought to furnish to those who really seek to turn the Rules and Orders of the House into a means of Obstruction, with another weapon, or

    961
    means of impeding the progress of debate; which, if this Amendment were adopted, would certainly be the case. We have occupied much, I will not say too much, time with the discussion of this Rule, and I would point out to the hon. Member that having to discuss questions which have been decided on analogous proposals, has only the effect of closing those days which the hon. Member, I believe, wishes, and which I am myself anxious, should be available for private Members. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to consider the principles involved in the Rule before the House. If he will do that, and allow the House rapidly to arrive at a decision on the main principles involved in this Rule, the House will then speedily regain control over its own time, and be able also fully to maintain the rights and liberties of the minorities.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Sir, I am at a loss to understand how anyone can imagine the speech we have just heard pertinent to the Amendment. It has sufficed, however, to let us see what is in the breast of the Government, and it is in this, that in applying the clôture to an Amendment, we shall also apply it to the Original Question. Strangle the mother, and you strangle the children also. It comes to this, that if you have an Amendment upon an Amendment, by putting the clôture upon that, the Original Question must be put straight away. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury took refuge in generalities, and said that the hon. Member for Cork wished to put the House back again into the position of master of its own debates, and he spoke of vicious licence which had prevailed of late years. Perhaps he would permit me to point out that the Member to whom his words would best apply is the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill); who, with others like him, has flourished under the shadow of liberty which the right hon. Gentleman is now attempting to cut down. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) has been rightly interpreted as only a declaratory Amendment, and I myself should be surprised if it were anything else. The hon. Member has given attention to this question of Procedure for many years; in fact, he has had occasion to study it ab initio. It should be conceded, therefore, that he is
    962
    likely to have a better opinion of the stringency of the Rule than most Members. He brings forward an Amendment declaratory of what ought to be the law of the House—stating that you shall not clôture the Original Question when you clôture an Amendment. I think it a matter of great misfortune that the First Lord of the Treasury, when he sought to reply to my hon. Friend, did not give us his own views as to what would be possible under the Rule he proposes, either with the Amendment of my hon. Friend or without it. No one can contend for a moment that if this Rule is passed the Amendment of my hon. Friend will not be in accordance with its spirit. If you negative the Amendment you will thereby place in the hands of the Speaker an extraordinary weapon. Let us suppose the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech is under consideration. You may have an Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings) on the Question of Allotments, and if that is carried on for an inordinately long period and someone proposes that the clôture should be put on, subsequent Amendments will be out of Order. Will the House allow that for a moment? And yet that would be the state of things if the view of the First Lord of the Treasury is correct. That would be an enormous misfortune, and I beg the young Democratic Members of the Conservative Party, who may hope, with the example of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington before them, to rise to the position of ex-Chancellors of the Exchequer, to consider carefully the position they will be placing themselves in by supporting the view of the First Lord of the Treasury. [Cries of "Order!"] I would ask hon. Members opposite to preserve some kind of patience, and I would appeal to them to have regard to this Rule as it appears in its hideous nakedness. Are we to be told when we know that Governments are put out of Office by the passing of an Amendment to the Address, that by carrying a proposal for the clôture on an Amendment you kill all other Amendments, and prevent further discussion on the Original Question? It appears to me highly injudicious for the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury by

    963
    answers confined to generalities to attempt to get rid of an inconvenient debate.
    MR. SCLATER - BOOTH: I am going to vote against this Amendment as I voted against the last, not because I undervalue the importance of limiting the imposition of the clôture, but because I think the limitation can be more conveniently discussed on an Amendment which will come before the House very soon. I think the House is hardly now sufficiently alive to the importance of some limitation. It is impossible to sever one of these proposals from the other. Recollect that the clôture which hitherto has been in abeyance, having only been exercised once or twice in the course of as many years, will in future be a matter of every night's occurrence. If you are to limit the period of our Sittings—if our Business is to conclude when the clock strikes 12 four nights in the week, you will have the clôture every night that the House sits. It is important, therefore, that the exact conditions of the clôture should be settled, and settled carefully. I hope the House will pass away from the Amendment we have before us, and come to grapple with the question at issue, which will be raised as soon as the controversy is settled between the Government and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread). I proposed, originally, that the question of the limitation of the clôture should be put in a proviso at the end of the Rule. The Government desired that it should come in at an earlier period, and, therefore, they proposed to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Wells Division of Somersetshire, which is practically mine. They do not adopt that Amendment in its entirety, but have adopted variations in its language, and these variations I trust they will put on the Paper before to-morrow morning. We shall then have an opportunity of seeing what they propose; but whatever the alterations in the hon. Baronet's Amendment, I beg of the House to consider the importance of having some limitation that every human being can understand, for this if for no other reason, that whereas the clôture has been only a possible element in our discussions hitherto, to
    964
    be availed of only in great emergencies, it will be, if this Rule is adopted, a matter that will come before the House, and be present to the House, on every occasion that it sits.
    MR. MAC NEILL: From the Ministerial Bench has come a voice of warning. I do hope that the voice of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) will not be, to that side of the House, as the voice of one crying in the wilderness. We have heard generous sentiments from Gentlemen opposite, many of whom, no doubt, feel that the principles won by the blood and the genius of their forefathers should not be, like simple gamblers' counters, dissipated to the winds. The First Lord of the Treasury has spoken in terms of deprecation of what he calls the vicious licence of speech. Well, the same observation was made applicable to a great name in English literature—the great name of Milton, when he published his Defence of the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing. We are raising our protest against attacks upon the liberty of unlicensed speech. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that it is his belief that liberty of speech will not be affected by this Rule, as it stands, without the Amendment. We cannot see that through the right hon. Gentleman's eyes. We must look through the eyes of practical experience. From hon. Members sitting on this Bench—many of whom have suffered for their speeches—has come forth much evidence in defence of liberty of speech in this House; consequently I shall support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, all through his argument, and the many speeches he has addressed to the House—few, perhaps, in comparison with the voices of warning and entreaty which have come to him from these Benches—says that the powers he seeks will not be pushed to an extreme limit. But the same argument may be applied in curtailment of every liberty we possess. We ask the right hon. Gentleman to meet us in a spirit of compromise as an endeavour to maintain one of the few remaining safeguards we possess.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 302: Majority 186.—(Div. List, No. 34.)
    MR. PARNELL: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to move the next Amendment standing in my name, as the principle has been decided by the last Question.
    MR. SPEAKER: The next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny) is also precluded by what the House has already done. The House has sanctioned the adoption of the clôture while the Speaker is in the Chair, while the House is in Committee, and on going into Committee of Supply. To exclude
    "the Motion for the Second Reading of any Bill introduced on the responsibility of the Government,"
    seems to be based on no intelligible principle, and is in opposition to what the House has already sanctioned.
    MR. PARNELL: The next Amendment of mine is one for which the way was cleared—
    MR. SPEAKER: As I understand, this is a limitation upon what the House has already decided. The clôture is to be applicable when the Speaker is in the Chair, and in Committee of Supply. Now, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Parnell) proposes to confine the application of the clôture to a special hour. That is in opposition to what the House has already decided.
    MR. PARNELL: Perhaps I may be permitted to say that my proposal to limit the application of the clôture to
    "midnight on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, and half-past 5 of the clock on Wednesdays,"
    is based upon the Report of the Select Committee of 1886.
    MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman had moved an independent Amendment to the effect that there should be an automatic closure at midnight, that would be an entirely different thing; but it appears to me that the acceptance of this Amendment would be a direct stultification of what the House has already done. The House has decided that the closure should be applicable at the different stages I have mentioned, and it is impossible to suppose that all these stages could occur at midnight.
    COLONEL NOLANrose in order to move to insert after "proposed" in line 1, "on a Monday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday."
    MR. SPEAKER: For the reasons I have just given, it appears to me that the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment is out of Order.
    COLONEL NOLAN: My Amendment is simply to exclude Tuesdays and Wednesdays from the operation of the closure, and I submit we have done nothing to prevent me moving such an Amendment.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman might just as well exclude Mondays, Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I submit, Sir, that we have done nothing yet as to what days the Closure Rule is to be put into operation, and what days it shall not be applied.
    MR. SPEAKER: The application of the clôture to a particular day in the week would be inconsistent with what we have already done. After what has been decided, we cannot confine the clôture to any particular hour or night. If Amendments of this sort are to be allowed, they may be carried to any length.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I can hardly think you mean, Mr. Speaker, that if we agree to a principle, we are not to move a limitation of that principle. All I understand my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan) to propose is, that what are called private Members' days should be exempt from the application of the closure.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I will raise no question upon these Amendments, but for our future guidance I should like to know whether it is possible, by way of proviso, for instance, when we have laid down a general Rule, to resolve that the Rule may, under certain circumstances, be suspended or limited to particular times and to particular days—in fact, whether the passing of a general Rule would exclude altogether the passing of a proviso which would limit the adoption of that Rule in some way or other.
    MR. SPEAKER: I am not prepared to say that a special proviso might not be introduced, relating to Tuesday and Wednesday sittings, inasmuch as private Members' Bills and Motions would be then before the House; but I am clearly of opinion that the ruling I have laid down is a sound one—namely, that the House having sanctioned a general

    967
    principle, it would be out of Order to attempt to reduce it to a minimum by a series of minute and trivial exceptions.
    COLONEL NOLAN: Will you allow me, Sir, to alter my Amendment, so as to exempt Tuesdays and Wednesdays. The effect of such an Amendment will be exactly the same as that on the Paper.
    MR. SPEAKER: The House has agreed that the clôture shall be generally applicable. I think the exception the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to make might be made by way of a proviso, considering the circumstances of private Members.
    COLONEL NOLAN: Then I will move an Amendment in the shape of a proviso, enacting that the Rule shall not apply to Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
    MR. SPEAKER: I meant, of course, that the proviso should come at the end. A proviso cannot be inserted in the middle of a clause.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Would I be in Order, Mr. Speaker, in moving upon this Amendment the adjournment of the House?
    MR. SPEAKER: I call upon the Hon. Gentleman the Member for the Wells Division of Somersetshire.
    SIR RICHARD PAGET, who had the following Amendment on the Paper:—
    "Rule 1, line 1, leave out from 'proposed,' to end of line 4, and insert 'A Member rising in his place may move 'That the Question be now put,' and if it shall appear to the Chair that, having due regard to the rights of the minority, it is proper that the sense of the House, or of the Committee, should be taken, as to whether or not the subject has been adequately discussed, he shall so inform the House or the Committee, and, in such case, shall forthwith put the said Question 'That the Question be now put,' which shall be decided without Amendment or Debate."
    said: Mr. Speaker, the Amendment which stands in my name raises a question of very considerable importance. I put it on the Paper with the view of facilitating the Business of the House, and of arriving at a solution of a question of considerable difficulty. In the course of this evening's debate, I understood you, Sir, to suggest that it would be an assistance to the proceedings if the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) were to reduce my Amendment to such words as he
    968
    thought desirable, and that then it should be open to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) to introduce the subject in which he is specially interested. In view of that suggestion, and having every desire to facilitate the Business of the House, I do not propose to move my Amendment, but to leave it in the hands of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, so that he may move it in the form that to him may seem best.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): From what the hon. Baronet has just said, it may be convenient to the House that I should read the form in which I propose to move the Amendment. Having regard to the period of the evening (12.20), and to the fact that the Amendment is not on the Paper in the precise terms in which I propose to move it, I will only now read it, and then move the adjournment of the debate, in order that the Amendment may be taken as the first Business to-morrow morning. The Amendment will run thus—To leave out from the word "proposed," in line 1, to the end of line 4, and insert the words—
    "A Member rising in his place may claim to move, 'That the Question be now put,' and, unless it shall appear to the Chair that such Motion is an abuse of the Rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the Question, 'That the Question be now put,' shall be put forthwith, and decided, without Amendment or Debate."
    I must express my acknowledgments to my hon. Friend (Sir Richard Paget) for having waived his right to move his Amendment. I believe the Amendment which I propose will substantially accomplish all I have undertaken to the House, and will afford the opportunity to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) which I understand he desires to have.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 1, by leaving out from the word "proposed," to the end of line 4, and inserting the words—"A Member rising in his place may claim to move, 'That the Question be now put,' and, unless it shall appear to the Chair that such Motion is an abuse of the Rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the Question, 'That the Question be now put,' shall be put forthwith, and decided, without Amendment or Debate."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'a Motion may be made' stand part of the Question."
    MR. PAENELL: I really must protest against the course which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) has thought proper to adopt. Notice was given of this Rule in due course, and it is to be assumed that the right hon. Gentleman knew his own mind. The debate commenced on this Rule, and various Amendments have been proposed. The question, which the right hon. Gentleman has now brought forward to meet this Amendment, was raised several days ago, and since then the right hon. Gentleman has, I suppose, been carrying about this Amendment concealed upon his person, and he has not deigned or vouchsafed until this evening to inform the House of its terms. I submit that it is in accordance with precedent—that it is in accordance with the custom and usage of the House; that it is in accordance with the habits of Members of the House—to give due Notice of any Motion or Amendment proposed to be moved. It is not reasonable that the right hon. Gentleman should come forward with an Amendment of this kind just as the House is about to adjourn, and announce that he will propose it at 12 o'clock to-morrow. How are we to know what attitude to take regarding this Amendment, when we have had no Notice of it? I do not wish to describe the course of proceedings and the negotiations which we may assume have taken place between the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) and his follower (Sir Richard Paget); but we saw that an Amendment was put down in the name of that hon. Gentleman, and that if it was put down for any purpose at all, it must have been to forestall the Amendment which was to be moved by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread). When the Amendment has served its purpose, the hon. Gentleman (Sir Richard Paget) declines to move it, and thereupon the Leader of the House springs an Amendment upon the House in its place. I do not know what position we are drifting into in the consideration of these Rules owing to the shiftless and nerveless character of the Leadership of the right hon. Gentleman. It seems to me that
    970
    we are carrying on this debate with the probability before us that Amendments of an important character may be sprung upon us by the Leader of the House at a moment's notice. How are we to consider this Amendment between now and 12 o'clock to-morrow. There are just 11½ hours left to us for the purpose of sleep and the consideration of this important Resolution, which is to remedy all the defects in this extraordinary compilation in the shape of Rules of Procedure. I submit that the right hon. Gentleman ought to adjourn this Debate until next Friday, in order to allow Wednesday to be devoted to the work of private Members, and Thursday to be taken up with Supply; and in order that we may see what is the nature, tendency, and bearing of this Amendment. It may be that the Amendment will settle everything, and that everybody will be satisfied—that the lion will lie down with the lamb. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman should give his Amendment some chance. The only chance it has at present is that of being misunderstood. I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be adjourned till To-morrow."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
    MR. PARNELL: I rise to move, as an Amendment, that the debate be resumed on Friday. I submit that it is impossible for the House to resume the discussion on the important Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman this day. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not suppose that we can come to a decision on this Question at so short a notice. Does he intend that Members of this House shall have time to move an Amendment to this proposal, or does he come down, like Jupiter from the clouds, and tell us that this is his will, and that we must obey it? Is he the House, or does the House consist of its Members? Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to have everything taken on his own ipse dixit?
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "To-morrow," in order to insert the word "Friday."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question proposed, "That the word, 'To-morrow' stand part of the Question."
    MR. CHAPLIN: Sir, I must say that the strictures which the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) has been pleased to pass on my right hon. Friend are utterly undeserved, and as incoherent as they are undeserved. At one moment, the hon. Member condemns the shifty and nerveless action of the right hon. Gentleman, and at another, he spoke of him as Jupiter coming down from the clouds. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has displayed, in the most remarkable manner, qualities of tact, patience, and firmness; and it is because those qualities are beginning to make their mark upon the House, that such burning indignation has been called forth from the hon. Member for Cork, who is generally so placid and calm of speech. Let me observe that the whole of the hon. Member's speech consisted of imputations, for which, I venture to say, there was no foundation whatever. He says, first of all, that this Amendment has been sprung upon the House. I say that the moment the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Wells Division of Somerset (Sir Richard Paget) was reached, it was the absolute and positive duty of the Leader of the House to deal with the Amendment and to state to the House the manner in which he proposed to do so; and, accordingly, in the most open and candid manner, he placed the views of the Government before the House. And not only that, but in order that the House might have an opportunity of considering it, he stated that he would move the adjournment at once and proceed with the debate to-morrow. The hon. Member proposes that the debate should be adjourned till Friday. I venture to say that we have had too many Adjournments already, and that if these Rules are to be carried, as undoubtedly they will be carried, we should proceed with them with the smallest possible delay. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not for one moment entertain the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork.
    MR. T. M. HEALY): I venture to promise the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down the next Cabinet Ministership. Everyone on the Treasury Bench must admit that he has deserved it by the encomium he has passed on the First Lord of the Trea-
    972
    sury; and, for my part, knowing his admirable qualifications, I should have no difficulty in conferring it upon him. The proposal of the hon. Member for Cork is that we should be afforded time for the consideration of the Amendment which the First Lord of the Treasury has just put forward. That, I think, will not be considered a strong request, having regard to the fact that to-morrow is a private Members' day. There are many points in the Amendment which are difficult to understand. One part of it is ungrammatical, and, although we do not necessarily expect grammar in Amendments, we do expect sense. I ask whether anybody can understand the wording of this Amendment? I say that, for that purpose, time is necessary; and, if we are allowed time to consider the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, we may perhaps be able to knock the bottom out of it. We may have an opportunity of bringing argument to bear upon the Government. One of the great qualities displayed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) is that he is not insensible to argument; and, therefore, in order that he may not be persuaded by argument, he has now left the House. I hope that we shall not be asked to come down to the House to-morrow, and enter upon the discussion of this Amendment, which would be more than human nature could bear.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT): Sir, although I cannot support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) at this period of the Session, when time presses, yet I cannot but agree that the Government have placed the House in very considerable difficulty, for no one can deny that, by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, the House is called upon to discuss an entirely new Rule. It is different in principle from the Rule deliberately introduced by the Government some weeks ago. I think it is a very great pity that, when this question as to the part which the Speaker is to take in the application of the closure was raised more than a week ago, the Government could not make up their mind as to what they would do on the subject. The question has been very much discussed both inside and outside the House, and surely the Government, with that before them, ought to have come to a decision

    973
    as to what alteration they would agree to in the proposed Rule. It will not, I think, shorten or facilitate the Business of the House that the Government, having deliberately placed one plan on the Paper, should now come down and propose a different plan; and I cannot but consider that, in doing this, the Government have taken a very inconvenient course.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): Sir, my right hon. Friend (Sir William Harcourt) has, as usual, been extremely amusing; but I doubt whether he has been, at the same time, extremely fair. He blames the Government for having, as he says, introduced a new Rule—for having considered as we were challenged to do, the various Amendments that have been proposed in different parts of the House. At the commencement of these proceedings we stated that we were not so enamoured of the precise form in which these Rules were drawn, as not to take into consideration suggestions made in any quarter of the House; and I should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman opposite would have said if we had stood to the words originally proposed and had refused to listen to those suggestions. The right hon. Gentleman says that he does not think that any alteration of the proposals of the Government will facilitate the progress of Business. I am certain, however, that the rejection of every proposed alteration would not facilitate the progress of Business. There has been the Amendment of the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Stuart); that of the hon. Baronet behind me (Sir Richard Paget), and the Amendments of other hon. Gentlemen, which we have considered, and that with the desire to obtain the greatest amount of acquiescence from the House. We have acted in this matter with the concurrence of Members on this side, and also with the concurrence of many hon. Gentlemen on the other side; and notwithstanding the taunts of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Government will continue to listen to any reasonable Amendments which may come from different parts of the House, believing that by so doing they will promote the transaction of Business.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Sir, The right hon. Gentle-
    974
    man the Chancellor of the Exchequer is never very amusing, very rarely fair, and seldom accurate. The right hon. Gentleman has undoubtedly misapprehended the opinions that have been expressed with regard to the Amendment which has been brought forward by the Government. No one has complained—neither the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), nor any of my hon. Friends, that the Government have listened to Amendments which have come from different parts of the House. The burden of complaint is entirely different. It is that the Government have not given the House timely Notice of the Amendment which they intended to propose. Let me state to the House what has taken place. The First Lord of the Treasury after a hurried conversation with a right hon. Gentleman, sprung this Amendment upon the House. I am in the recollection of the House, and I appeal to my hon. Friend to say whether or not the right hon. Gentleman was in absolute ignorance of the words of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have now the courage and the unfairness to ask the House to consider at once the terms of an Amendment of which they themselves were ignorant a few hours ago. [Interruption.] I shall be sorry to have to move the adjournment of the debate; but if these discourteous interruptions continue, I shall take that course. I point out that the Amendment of the Member for the Basingstoke Division of Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth) was on the Paper as far back as last Thursday, and last Friday the First Lord of the Treasury announced that he would be willing to accept the spirit of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Shoreditch; but we have not yet had on the Paper the exact words in which the Government said they would carry out the spirit of that Amendment, and I think it is treating the House with disrespect that we should be allowed to spend several days without knowing what were the intentions of the Government.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
    And Mr. SPEAKER, being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, put the Question forthwith.
    The House divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 243: Majority 133.—(Div. List, No. 35.)
    Original Question proposed, "That the word 'To-morrow' stand part of the Question."
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I am glad to see the First Lord of the Treasury back in the House. I share entirely with him the desire that Business should be done as rapidly as possible, and the right hon. Gentleman is himself so conciliatory that I do think I shall be able to show him that the most desirable thing that can be done in the interest of debate is to agree to the Motion of my hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell). On Thursday last, or about a week ago, I think the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Basingstoke Division of Hants was placed on the Table. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House then said that he would accept the spirit of the Amendment. Well, I hardly think that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman has sprung on us does accept so absolutely the spirit of that Amendment. We may suppose that since the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman was put down, the Cabinet have consulted together and considered in what way they could receive it. They have had several days to consider it; and we, surely, should have a little more than twelve hours. It cannot be considered extraordinary if we fail to realize and appreciate the Amendment, seeing that we have only just had it placed before us, and that the Cabinet took several days to make it up. It is most desirable that there should be a conciliatory spirit shown, in order that there should be nothing to interfere with healthy debate in dealing with Rules of Procedure. Is it possible that anything will be gained by the right hon. Gentleman insisting upon coming down here at 12 o'clock to-morrow in order to discuss this Amendment? Why, Sir, I am not a prophet; but if I were one, I would say that at 6 o'clock to-morrow no advance will have been made; and why? The reason is this—that anxious as we are to discuss the matter, everyone knows that when Members do not understand a thing they find it difficult to make progress upon it. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it really would conduce to
    976
    do that which he and I are so anxious for—namely, get us rapidly through these Rules of Procedure, and enable the right hon. Gentleman, as he says on his side, to engage in the Business of the Session, and enable us, on our side, to know what the Business of the Session will be, if he would give way on this point. We are both anxious to make progress, and it really will conduce to our getting to the end of the Procedure Rules if the right hon. Gentleman will concede this point, which I think is a fair and legitimate one—that we should have a day to consider that which the Cabinet itself has taken a week to think over.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I wish always to adopt a conciliatory attitude towards an hon. Member who is so conciliatory himself towards me. The hon. Gentleman has said that no progress will be made to-morrow, and he says he is not a prophet. Why, Sir, I think he has a wonderful gift of prophecy. I can only say I shall deeply regret it if no progress is made to-morrow; but, whether or no, I certainly think it my duty to the House and to the country to persevere in the Motion I have made.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I only just wish to give the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury a practical instance of the extreme trouble he is giving Members of this House, and, perhaps, it may force him to reconsider his decision. I have given Notice of an Amendment to the effect that an hour's debate shall be allowed, leaving out from the words "that the Question be now put." I have not seen the Amendment of the Government, and I have had to hand mine in prepared in a very slip-shod fashion. If we had had the Amendment before us, we should have been able to see the whole of it, and to have put down Notices to it. I now beg to point out the extreme inconvenience caused by the course taken by the Government. We shall all be groping in the dark, and, moreover, we shall be greatly prejudiced by not being able to put down our Amendments to-night.
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: I must protest against the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that it is to the interest of the country to resist the Motion made. For my own part, I do not believe it to be to the interests of the country that

    977
    the Representatives of the country should be hurried or flurried in these matters. It is impossible for Members to discuss new Amendments without ample time for consideration. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has pointed out, the Amendment of the Government contains new principles most fatal to minorities. I think that the proposal of the hon. Member for Cork is most reasonable, and that the House and the country should have between this and next Friday to consider the Government Amendment.
    MR. ILLING WORTH: No doubt a considerable length of time has been devoted to the consideration of this Rule; in the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite, perhaps an undue length of time. But, on the other hand, there may be undue haste in attempting to force through the House a serious alteration in the Rule the Government have proposed. When we meet to-morrow, we shall have had very little time to consider the Amendment which has been deliberately adopted by the Cabinet. Why was not the House taken into the confidence of the Government? Why was not ample time given in order that the House might be able to consider this Amendment as it has had the chance of considering other Amendments? If this Amendment has been hastily adopted, then, for the sake of the Government itself, as well as of the House at large, I think it would be of advantage that we should postpone the debate until Friday. Why is it that the hon. Member for the Wells Division of Somersetshire has withdrawn his Amendment? He has done it in concert with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. If that is so, clearly the right hon. Gentleman had to provide a substitute, and it is evident that he had not consulted his Colleagues as to the phraseology of the alteration of the Rule, for he brought the Paper into the House, and was not himself able to communicate its terms to us. This important modification which has been stated to the House to-night, I think I am right in saying, was hastily put together by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in consultation with the First Lord of the Treasury. To ask the House to proceed in such a hasty and
    978
    irregular manner is to exact too much from it. It is not an ordinary third class Bill that we are considering, but the most important Rule which can be submitted to Parliament, and one which will influence the proceedings of Parliament for some time to come. If hon. Gentlemen opposite had been sitting on this side of the House, and this trick had been attempted to be played upon them, they would have been loud in their denunciations. We want time to consider the words of the proposal of the Government and the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth). I, for one, venture to think that no anticipation could be more correct than the prophecy of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). Coming hastily as this proposal does, it must appear suspicious; and I think the Government would be adopting the best means of facilitating Business if they postponed the discussion till Friday and took Supply to-morrow.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I do not think—[Loud and continued cries of "Divide!"] I do not think the House has any right to complain of my rising. This is the first occasion on which—[Cries of "Divide!"] This is the first occasion on which I have interposed in this debate, and it seems to me that if no Members are to speak a single word upon this matter—[Cries of "Divide!"] I have not spoken in this debate before. I am addressing myself to Mr. Speaker and not to you. I think I may fairly ask for two or three minutes of the attention of the hon. Members opposite, who claim to have all the intelligence if not all the courtesy of the House on their side. I only wish to place before the House, in a few words, my reasons for supporting the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) in respect to this matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) made a pointed reference just now to the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), and gave that as a reason for the action of the Government in this matter. It appears to me perfectly clear that the Government, finding that some of their Unionist Supporters were likely to go against them, have thrown their political somersault and sprung this Amendment on the House. It is impossible to con-

    979
    sider, at a moment's notice, this revolutionary change in the attitude of the Government. We are entitled to ask for a little more than eight or 10 hours in which to consider the present proposition of the Government. It is not as if this were a mere verbal alteration; but it is an entirely new proposal, a proposal absolutely different in every particular to that the Government had pinned their faith upon during the last week. I have no doubt we shall be charged with Obstruction; but we are not the real Obstructionists.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not confining himself to the Motion before the House.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I submit, of course, to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I did not mean to charge hon. Members opposite with any offence. I will only—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the Motion before the House; that is what I was referring to.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I understand your ruling, Sir. I will only say, in conclusion, that we on this side of the House are entitled to as much consideration in respect to this proceeding on the part of the Government as any Members on the other side. The claim we make for only a few hours' delay is really one that we are entitled to press upon Her Majesty's Government. If it were 7 o'clock in the evening instead of half-past 1 in the morning, the case would be different. It is perfectly obvious we have had no opportunity of considering the bearings of this Amendment, and therefore I heartily support the propositien of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell).
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 223; Noes 97: Majority 126.—(Div. List, No. 36.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

    NATIONAL PROVIDENT INSURANCE.
    Ordered, That the Select Committee on National Provident Insurance do consist of Seventeen Members:—The Committee was accordingly nominated of,—Sir Herbert Maxwell, Mr. Stuart-Wortley, Mr. William Lowther, Viscount Folkestone, Viscount Grimston, Mr. Norton, Mr. Llewellyn, Mr. Rankin, Mr. Herbert Gladstone, Mr. A. H. Acland, Mr.
    980
    Abraham, Mr. Bernard Coleridge, Mr. Walter James, Mr. Biddulph, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Mr. T. M. Healy, and Mr. Byrne.
    Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
    Ordered, That Five be the quorum.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Truro Bishopric and Chapter Acts Amendment* (33).
Second Reading—Electric Lighting Act (1882) Amendment (10).
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Cppyhold Enfranchisement (13).
Committee—Lunacy Acts Amendment (7–34).
Report—Solicitors (Ireland) (31).

ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 10.)
(The Lord Thurlow.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD THURLOWsaid, that in asking their Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill he desired to say that its subject was not new to him, as he had for the last five years been practically and commercially connected with the industry, and had for four years been one of the few Members of their Lordships' House who had had electric light in his own house, and thus had daily opportunity of studying it, and of appreciating its comfort and convenience. It would be interesting to know how many of their Lordships actually had introduced electric lighting into their houses. He should think a dozen or a score would be the outside. Among them, however, there was, he was glad to say, the Leader of the House, the noble Marquess at the head of the Government, who had the honour of having been one of the earliest and most successful pioneers of electricity, not only in connection with lighting, but with the transmission of power. He could not help thinking that the experience of the noble Marquess would make him concur with him in thinking that the moment had now come to amend the Act of 1882, under which, as it stood, central lighting stations and house-to-house lighting were a commercial impossibility. Their Lordships must remember the circumstances under which that Act was passed. The science was then in its infancy. Not long before Lane-Fox and Edison had made discoveries in filaments and attachments that had for the first time made

855
incandescent lighting practically possible. Electric lighting then rapidly became a medium for the heaviest gambling in shares known since the South Sea Bubble. So great was the notoriety of this gambling that the Government of the day felt bound to step in to prescribe rules for regulating and arresting the flow of capital into all kinds of hasty and ill-considered schemes. All this had now completely changed. The gambling spirit that raised £5 shares to £60 had passed away and been buried in the ruins of many of the Companies which were then promoted. Out of the 36 Companies which, previous to the Act of 1882, were in existence, only seven of any consequence survived. The stage of leisurely repentance had been reached. Meanwhile, immense progress had been made in every branch of electric lighting. One branch of the subject, almost unknown in 1882, and now justly considered as a necessary element in successful incandescent electric lighting—namely, cells or accumulators for storing electricity—had now been practically perfected. Without storage batteries engines and dynamos must be kept constantly working, and the light, which flickered always more or less with the pulsations of the engine, was injurious to the eyesight and unsatisfactory. Of course, much work remained to be done. Reliable and simple meters were still required, but the position had quite changed. Electric lighting was no longer a dream of the future but a reality, and commercially possible but for the Act of 1882. For example, ship lighting, subjected to no trammels, was now being universally adopted by all the great Companies, the Cunard, the P. and O., the German Lloyd, and by the Navies of the world. Even great buildings large enough to make them independent of central lighting stations and able to generate electricity for themselves had adopted it, such as Buckingham Palace, the Grand Hotel, the Métropole and First Avenue Hotels, several theatres, the Athenæum Club, the Junior United Service Club, the Junior Carlton, South Kensington Museum, the British Museum, the Grosvenor Gallery, and many more; but house-to-house lighting remained an utter impossibility, as capita could not be raised under the onerous provisions of the Act of 1882 for central lighting stations. Let their Lordships
856
compare with this state of things the position of the science abroad and in America, where it was estimated that upwards of £32,000,000, of which £21,000,000 were in arc and £11,000,000 in incandescent, had been invested in electric lighting. To come, however, to the Bill before the House, their Lordships would remember what passed on the subject last year, when three Bills were introduced. For Bill No. 1 he was himself to a large extent responsible, as it was the Bill of a Committee of experts and scientific men who had considered the matter for two years and over which he had the honour to preside. That Bill aimed, no doubt, at too much. Its object was to put electricity on the same footing as gas. This was considered as a desire to set up a second monopoly, while the real object was only to enable it to compete successfully against an existing monopoly. Bill No. 2 was brought in by a noble Viscount not now in his place (Viscount Bury), whose knowledge of the subject was accurate and extensive; and Bill No. 3 was the Government Bill. Those three Bills went to a Select Committee, and important evidence was heard, among others that of Sir Frederick Bramwell, Mr. Preece, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Hucks Gibbs, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Crompton. The result was the amendment of the Government measure, Bill No. 3, and in that amended shape it would have passed into law had it not been for the change of Government and death of the Parliament. The present Bill was founded on that Bill with only one addition. It was last year's Bill No. 3, as amended in Committee with "goodwill" added. It only amended the Act of 1882 as regarded Clause 27, which dealt with the compulsory purchase of an undertaking by a Local Authority. The clause as it stood had been irreverently called the "Old Iron Clause," because under it property was to be compulsorily bought at its break-up value irrespective of its value as a going concern, after only 21 years. The effect of that was to compel undertakers to charge such a rate for electricity as was practically prohibitive and prevented its competition with gas. On this point he must confess to holding strong views, and he could not see why this industry should be treated differently from any other in the event of compulsory purchase by a Local Autho-

857
rity. Indeed, it had some claims to almost preferential treatment on account of salubrity, cleanliness, and safety. It seemed to be only a question of an alternative—either to allow a fair valuation of goodwill of the business, or to grant the licence for such a prolonged period as would enable undertakers to recoup themselves without charging a prohibitive price. If 50 years were granted this might meet the case; but, on the whole, it seemed wiser to shorten the preferential term, and to provide for competition at its expiry. This was the only question really to be settled. All were agreed on other points, such as the lamps clause, continuous supply, &c. The goodwill question was a thorny one, and admitted of much being said on both sides. His desire was to place it before the House as an open subject for the House in its wisdom to decide. He was willing to accept any reasonable Amendments in Committee if the House would permit the Bill to be read a second time; and he was willing to postpone the Committee stage to any reasonable date to suit the convenience of the Government and to afford time for deliberation. His only desire was that legislation should proceed this Session, and that an industry which only required fair conditions to progress should, in these days of depression and of large armies of unemployed, go on for the good of trade and of mankind at large. His object was to come to the relief of an industry capable of rendering the most important services to civilization. His own belief was that before many years they would find the Board of Trade prescribing electric lighting, on the score of health and safety, in all factories, schools, mines, theatres, churches, and the like; that the Gas Companies in England would follow the example of the Gas Companies on the Continent and in America, convert their plant and become purveyors of electricity; and that finally Registrar Generals of the future would be able to trace to this cause increased immunity from consumption and other kindred diseases which infallibly arose, to a great extent, from vitiation of the atmosphere now breathed. He could only say, in conclusion, that if the Government would undertake to deal with the matter, he would gladly leave it in their hands, and that he was willing to consider all points open to fair con-
858
sideration in Committee, if their Lordships would accept the view he took of the desirability of speedy legislation, and allow the Bill to be now read a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a".—(The Lord Thurlow.)
LORD HOUGHTONsaid, that no doubt the Bill of the noble Lord was founded on the Government Bill of last year as it emerged from Committee; but there were two particulars in which it differed from that Bill—one of addition and one of omission in regard to the powers of the Local Authorities. The first referred to the veto the Local Authorities might exercise when Companies applied for a Provisional Order. When the Bills of last year were being considered by a Select Committee, the Local Authorities demanded nothing less than an absolute power of veto upon any lighting undertaking in their district. He considered this demand excessive; but he would suggest that when a Local Authority was dissatisfied with, or objected to, an electric lighting scheme, the matter should be referred to the Board of Trade, and if it saw ground for overriding the Local Authority it should make a special Report to Parliament. He hoped that this suggestion would be considered by the promoters of the Bill. On the question of the terms on which an undertaking should be acquired by a Local Authority, he considered the inclusion of the word "goodwill," in the terms of purchase, objectionable, and on this point he would await with interest the expression of the views of the Government. He hoped the Bill would be read a second time.
LORD LINGEN, as a Member of the Select Committee who heard evidence upon this question, said that the Bill raised matters of great and general importance. In his opinion, the interests of a Local Authority entitled it to favourable consideration. The lighting of a town was a strictly local question, and in the case of Dover Harbour their Lordships had just given a second reading to a Bill which proposed to give to a Corporation powers even over a military port. There were two classes of witnesses before the Select Committee, the one composed of engineering, scientific, and financing authorities, and the other of town clerks, who were each

859
unanimous in advocating and opposing respectively the proposal that Local Bodies should pay for goodwill.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDsaid, that he thoroughly supported the Second Reading of the Bill, and approved the payment for goodwill if the compulsory purchase of a successful undertaking was insisted upon. No doubt some consideration should be made to Local Authorities for the permission they had granted to Companies to carry out their works; but it should not be more than was just and equitable. With regard to the town clerks alluded to by the last speaker, it was only natural that they should endeavour to serve the interests of their employers by seeking to obtain a ready-made and successful business at a less cost than that they would incur in initiating such a scheme. It was worth consideration whether an arrangement could not be made for the payment of a fair and proper footage-rent by Companies to Local Authorities. If the undertakings of Electric Lighting Companies were to be taken without payment for goodwill, he did not see where appropriation would end. It might be extended to Gas, Water, and Steamship Companies, whose undertakings were all matters of public importance. He believed that in time the electric lighting would so much extend that the machinery would be at a distance from London where land was cheap, and the wires, either overhead or underground, would extend throughout the Metropolis. In that event, he did not see how compulsory purchase without goodwill could be carried out. The attempt to put electric lighting on such a footing ought to be checked at once. The subject of electric lighting was one which he had cherished for a long time, and he believed it was now in a position to stand alone, provided it had a fairer chance than it had when this legislation was introduced. He did not greatly complain of the Act of 1882. He thought that Act had kept back the use of electric lighting, but also had shown that the question must be dealt with on broad and liberal lines.
LORD BEAMWELLsaid, he was a Member of the Committee which sat on this subject, and one thing was quite certain—that legislation on it was necessary. Electric lighting was now a success which could be relied upon. Whether
860
it could beat gas was a question; but, as a light, it was a success. At present, however, it could not be supplied to the public on account of the terms as provided by law. As the law now stood the terms were very hard indeed. It was that at some time or other—at the end of 20 years, or 30 or 40 years—however prosperous the concern might be, it was to be bought, not upon the terms paid for a successful concern, which might have been a failure; but it was to be bought according to the value of the plant and property belonging to the undertakers. It had been said that those were fair terms; but capitalists said—"We do not think so; we shall not subscribe on those terms," and it was in vain to tell them that they ought. The consequence was there was no public electric lighting. He was not going to find fault with the Board of Trade, its changing head or the permanent staff. He thought they ought to do their best for the public; but unfortunately, in this matter, they had imposed such terms that capitalists would not accept them, and so was a stop put to to electric lighting. Therefore, he said, some legislation was necessary. The Local Authorities did not undertake the electric lighting themselves; but after a Company had successfully done so, then they wanted to buy the undertaking at par, or less, not seeing that the undertakers were entitled to be paid for the risk they had run of the undertaking being a failure.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, in the absence of his noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Lord Stanley of Preston) he did not like to let the subject pass without saying something on behalf of the Government; but after the speech of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) opposite there was really very little to say. He thought the noble and learned Lord had presented the case with absolute fairness; but he wished to clear himself of the charge which the noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench seemed inclined to level against those who supported the Bill. He had never himself been bold enough to have a single share in any of the Electric Lighting Companies. He looked at the matter virtually as a public question; and he

861
had no interest in it, and never expected to have, except as a means of promoting a product of public utility. The history of this case was really the history of the action of a Public Department. The Board of Trade was horrified, and intelligibly horrified, at the position in which Parliament found itself in respect to the Water Companies. It was not entirely satisfied with the position in which Parliament found itself with respect to the Gas Companies. He did not say that that feeling had so much plausibility as the other. But the Board seemed to have resolved that it would not allow Parliament, as representing the public, to fall into that difficulty again; and that it would take good care that when electricity came for its authorization to Parliament, terms should be arranged which would place the public in a much better position than they were in with regard to the gas or water companies. But their very natural and praiseworthy feeling was carried to an exaggerated point. Their precautions were excessive. The legislation passed in 1882 had absolutely stifled the enter-prize of those who wished to introduce the electric light into this country, and they were now in this position—while in other countries the electric light was used for public purposes, it had not been used in this country, and could not be used, except by those Companies or Institutions or persons who could have the whole machinery for their own use, and produce their electricity entirely for themselves. He could not imagine that Parliament could look on this as a desirable state of things. Why were they not to have the comfort and advantage of this light, which those who were in a position to use it showed an increasing desire every day to have? The only argument which had any plausibility—and it was an argument which appeared to prevail in the minds of many noble Lords—was that they must save the rights of Local Authorities in this matter. He did not dispute that this was a very suitable matter for the Local Authorities to undertake, if they were willing to do so; and he could quite imagine that in 1882 the Board of Trade and the Local Authorities, generally speaking, thought it would be a pity to allow Companies to step into their place. But five years had passed away, and the Local Authorities were not inclined generally
862
to take this enterprize up. They were really putting the Local Authorities in the position of the dog in the manger; they would not allow the Companies to enter upon an enterprize which they would not undertake themselves. With respect to the noble Lord (Lord Lingen), who had cited the case of Dover Harbour, he would point out that the two instances—that of the electric light and Dover Harbour—were not on all-fours. If the Town Council of Dover had come to their Lordships to claim liberty to fill Dover Harbour up and shut it up until such time as it should be convenient for them to open it themselves, then they would have been in exactly the position of the Local Authorities now, who wished to stifle all electric lighting enterprize until they saw their way to undertake it themselves. He did not think that that was a proposition which Parliament ought to support. He inclined, in spite of the terror of the example of the Gas and Water Companies, to go back to ideas of less restriction and greater freedom in this matter, and to allow enterprize to have its full swing, to remove the obstacles which had hitherto impeded it, and to offer terms, not such as they thought the capitalist ought to accept, but which they found by experience he would accept. So it might be possible, by giving rights which were generous and large, to procure for the public the full advantage of those scientific inventions which other nations had, and which now, by our restrictive policy, we prevented the public from enjoying without doing any good to the Local Authorities which were the subject of so much tender care.
LORD THURLOWsaid, he would endeavour to amend the Bill in Committee, with the object of meeting the views which had been urged.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.—(No. 13.)
(The Lord Hobhouse.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HOBHOUSE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it had been the subject of a great

863
deal of discussion both in and out of Parliament for several years. It had been before a Committee of the House of Commons in 1884. It was passed in 1885, and came up to their Lordships' House very late in the Session. The Second Reading of it was then refused. In 1886 the Bill again passed the House of Commons, and, although in some details it had been altered, in essentials it was the same Bill as passed by the House of Commons in 1885 and 1886. The Bill contained a vast number of details of a technical character; and the measure was a proper one to lay before a Select Committee. He was, therefore, glad to find that the noble Earl opposite (Earl Stanhope) had put down a Motion that in the event of the Bill being read a second time he would move that it be referred to a Select Committee. The object of the Bill was to accelerate and facilitate the enfranchisements of copyhold. There were two propositions in connection with this subject which he thought should be established—(1) that the extinction of copyholds was a matter of great public interest; and (2) that the extinction would not proceed to any efficient extent unless some pressure of law was put on the parties interested in them. The Real Property Commissioners, in their Third Report of 1882, did not recommend compulsion, but only that some facilities and inducements should be offered. Nothing was done on that Report with regard to copyholds. The matter, however, was specially inquired into by a Committee of the House of Commons which sat in 1838. That Committee was of remarkable strength, including, as it did, the then Attorney General (Lord Campbell), Sir Robert Peel, Sir James Graham, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, and a number of county Gentlemen. They said that—
"The abolition of this tenure would not only be of great public benefit, but should be made, if possible, a national object. They are also of opinion that no plan which merely leaves the option to the parties to enfranchise will meet the exigency of the case, and they are therefore desirous of seeing a plan of enfranchisment introduced which shall have a due regard to the rights as well of the lord as the copyholder, but which shall be eventually compulsory on both."
And they concluded—
"They earnestly desire that measures may be speedily taken to accomplish this object with reference as well to lands of customary as of copyhold tenure. It appears to them that the best mode of effecting it would be by giving
864
every facility to enfranchisement for a short term of years, and that after that period the enfranchisement should proceed on the compulsory principle."
That Report led to the passing of the Act of 1841, which was the first Copyhold Enfranchisement Act; but the measure applied compulsion in a peculiar way since abandoned, and its machinery was so clumsy that it did not work at all. Only voluntary enfranchisements took place under this Act, and they only reached a yearly average of 42. About 10 years later the matter was again made the subject of inquiry by a Committee of Parliament, who again advised compulsion, and in the result the Act of 1852 was passed. That Act gave, with compulsion, an impetus to enfranchisement, and during the six years of its operation the yearly average was 243. Further compulsion was applied by the Act of 1858; and up to the end of 1883, the latest date to which he could find any tabulated account, there were about 13,000 enfranchisements under it, or an average of 554 yearly. And with all this effect of compulsion there had been no complaint—at least, no audible one—from the parties subject to it. He observed by the tables that of late years there had been a considerable decrease in the number of copyholders enfranchised, and he was told that this was due to the circumstance that the Treasury desired that the office fees should be increased so as to make the parties, in fact, pay the office expenses, and to the rule—a very unjust one as he thought—that the applicant should pay the costs. The present Bill altered the rule about costs, and introduced provisions intended to enable the parties to get what was tantamount to a statutory award for themselves without resorting to the office at all. There were still a great number of copyholds left. In Lancashire, he believed, there were considerable tracts where the whole land was under copyhold, and their Lordships were all familiar with them in different parts of the country; while those who had the greatest experience, and were most conversant with the working of the copyhold system, were most strongly of opinion that it was desirable to give a fresh impulse to their enfranchisement. What, then, was the amount and measure of the compulsion proposed by the Bill? It proposed that on the next ad-

865
mittance the lord should serve on the tenant who came to be admitted a notice of enfranchisement, and if he omitted to do so he should be subject to certain, penalties. With such notice the Bill proposed that the lord should be bound to serve a statement of what he was prepared to take as compensation for enfranchisement. Now, if there was to be any compulsion at all it was impossible to conceive any that would create a less amount of vexation than those provisions. The Bill imposed the very minimum of trouble and expense. The notice is to be given when the lord must be holding a Court for admittance, and has the tenant face to face with him. And the offer is to be made when the lord is demanding his fine, and therefore must have been estimating the improved value of the holding. There were two other clauses which affected compulsion—Clauses 10 and 11—which dealt with sporting rights, and removed them from their present position as manorial incidents which could only be enfranchised by consent, into the category of other incidents, which could be enfranchised in the ordinary way. By Clause 32 the parties were enabled by a memorandum of enfranchisement to obtain that which was equivalent to a statutory award; and there were other clauses connected with it, and drawn with the intention of enabling the parties to dispense with the assistance of the Commissioners, thereby saving time and cost. Clause 44 directed the Commissioners to publish a scale of compensation for the guidance of valuers and parties, it was proposed that compensation should be by way of rent-charge wherever it was of less value than £25—that was to say, whenever it amounted to £1 a-year. That clause had been recommended by the Incorporated Law Society; but he had inserted it rather as affording a basis for discussion in Committee than from any notion that it would be accepted as it stood. It was a subject on which there were great differences of opinion. Other clauses dealt with the payment of rent-charges. Others of considerable importance gave powers to limited owners to give discharges for compensations, to retain small sums, and to charge their payments upon the settled estates. But he would not now go into further detail. He attributed considerable importance to the fact that this measure
866
had received the approval of the Incorporated Law Society and of the Land Commissioners. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Hobhouse.)
LORD BEAMWELLsaid that he should not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, because he understood that it was the general desire of their Lordships that it should be read a second time, with the object of its being referred to a Select Committee. He opposed a somewhat similar measure which was brought forward in 1885, on the ground that it proposed to make the enfranchisement of copyholds compulsory, and it was rejected on the Motion for its Second Reading. He fully admitted that the copyhold tenure was a bad one, from which the greatest possible good was not obtainable, and he believed it would be a good thing if, by the wave of a magic wand, the whole of the copyholds could be turned into freeholds. But it should be left to the decision of the landlord and tenant whether that tenure should be converted into freehold.
THE LORD CHANCELLOE (Lord HALSBURY)said, he was anxious to state at once that, although he did not altogether approve of some of the proposals of the Bill, he did not intend to oppose its Second Reading. He thought that this measure was a great improvement upon the former one. In the present Bill there was, at all events, an effort to preserve the rights of the two parties to the enfranchisement. It was clear that, in the interests of both parties, and in the interests of the public, it was desirable that something should be done to improve the existing law in regard to copyholds. Every lawyer had admitted over and over again that the copyhold tenure was a bad one, and that it had given rise to questions of great difficulty with regard to the minerals lying beneath the land subjected to it. The noble and learned Lord who had last spoken had objected to the enfranchisement of copyhold lands being made compulsory; but it must be remembered that unless some pressure were brought to bear, people would not be induced to move in the matter. He was glad to find that the machinery of this Bill was much more simple and less expensive than that proposed to be established by

867
the measure of 1885. He hoped that when the Bill came to be examined by a Selcet Committee, it would be still further improved.
EARL STANHOPEsaid, that as his noble and learned Friend had accepted his proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, he should support the Second Reading. While admitting that it was desirable to get rid of copyhold tenure, he did not think that there was a great demand for it on the part of the public, seeing that yesterday a Petition had been presented from 269 manors against it. Moreover, the enfranchisement of copyholds was proceeding, if not rapidly, at least satisfactorily—554 enfranchisements a-year—and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had enfranchised 2,500 copyholders. He thought that it was unjust to the landlords, whose interest was remote, to require them to defray the cost of valuation, of fixing the boundaries, and of ascertaining the quantity of minerals beneath the surface out of the almost nominal fines which they received. He would like to see a clause introduced which would guard the rights of the lords of manors to the minerals on the land. There were many complicated clauses and difficulties in the Bill which would require to be carefully dealt with by the Committee. He hoped that power would be given to call for evidence.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that this measure was one in which great interest was taken in certain parts of the country, and especially in Lancashire. There was a large tract in Lancashire where the lords' interest was so small as to be of very little value. Those copyholds were considered of much greater value to the stewards, and on enfranchisement the stewards got an amount of compensation far exceeding any which the lords got. A tenure of that description was kept up much more in the interests of the steward than of the lord, and therefore their lordships would not be surprised that the feeling in that part of the country in favour of enfranchisement was very strong. He would ask his noble Friend to consider this question of stewards' compensation. As far as he saw, if the lord was to get anything under £50 the steward was to get £4. He would like to see it provided that when the lord gained only a few shillings the steward should not gain a few
868
pounds. He thought it would not be impossible to devise a scheme by which a certain number of copyhold tenants might act together so as to reduce the cost. There were many cases in which people would enfranchise if something were to force them, but who would not unless some such compulsion were applied. As to what his noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell) had said about the public interest being only the interest of those who possessed the land making such arrangement as they pleased; he thought that if a law of tenure was prejudicial to the public interests the public had a right to provide that it should not exist. He was very much struck by what he had seen when taken professionally to a manor on which certain enfranchisements were to take place. As he went along he observed the most striking contrasts. On some holdings there were new, handsome, and costly buildings, while on others the buildings were squalid and mean; and he was able at once to put his finger upon the holdings which had been enfranchised and upon those where no enfranchisement had taken place. He quite admitted, however, that the Bill ought to be carefully scrutinized in Committee.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was willing to admit that they ought to simplify the law so as to make registration of title more possible, and, therefore, he would not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. But he must demur to what his noble Friend in charge of the Bill had said as to the burning desire of copyholders to enfranchise land. With regard to what his noble and learned Friend had said about the unimproved condition of the buildings on unfranchised holdings, he would observe that the laws gave the copyholders a perfect means of securing themselves against the slightestloss or inconvenience arising from their desire to improve. All they had to do was to enfranchise the house on its unimproved value and to improve it afterwards. What probably was the case on the holdings of which his noble and learned Friend had spoken was, that where men had capital they enfranchised and put up good buildings, and where they had not the bad buildings remained. He was aware that there were parts of the country, such as Lancashire, where serious inconvenience

869
did arise under the present state of things. But the returns on the subject were not a sufficient guide as to the number of enfranchisements. It was only the copyholds enfranchised by the Land Commissioners which were given. There were a large number besides which were enfranchised. It was more costly to go to the Land Commissioners than to enfranchise by agreement. It would certainly be a great public advantage if anything could be done to simplify land tenure; but it was not necessary to do anything which would tend by worrying the copyholder to force him into enfranchisement when he did not desire it, and he thought the Bill would have somewhat that effect as it at present stood. If it was thought necessary to compel copyholders to enfranchise, it should be done by a direct Act, with as little expense as possible to the persons interested, and by a law which all classes of persons could clearly understand.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he thought a sense of obligation must be felt by the House and by all those who desired to promote reform of the law, to his noble Friend (Lord Hobhouse) for bringing the subject forward and putting this Bill into the greatly improved form in which it stood. Whether the inconvenience of copyhold tenures was greater or less, all were agreed that it would be a good thing to get rid of them; and this Bill, which would at least accelerate and facilitate their extinction, was therefore a step in the right direction. He hoped that the Bill might emerge from the Select Committee and become law this year.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and referred to a Select Committee.

LUNACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
(NO. 7.) COMMITTEE.
House again in Committee (according to order).
Clause 3 (Order for reception of private patients, to be made by County Court Judge, Magistrate, or Justice).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY), on rising to move the Amendments to Clause 3 which he had undertaken to prepare when the Bill was previously in Committee, said, that he
870
had endeavoured to meet the views which many of their Lordships opposite expressed when the subject was before under discussion. He believed Amendments such as he proposed were necessary to make the Bill acceptable and to ensure its being passed into law. He would now move the omission of subsections 9 and 10.
Moved, To omit sub-sections 9 and 10.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Motion agreed to.
Moved, To add the following sub-sections:—
"Upon the presentation of the petition the judge, magistrate, or justice, shall consider the evidence of lunacy appearing by the medical certificates, and whether it is necessary for him personally to see and examine the alleged lunatic, and if he is satisfied that an order may properly be made forthwith he may make the same accordingly. The judge, magistrate, or justice, if not satisfied with the evidence of lunacy appearing by the medical certificate may, if he thinks it necessary so to do, visit the alleged lunatic at the place where he may happen to be. When a lunatic has been received in an asylum, hospital, or house, or as a single patient under an order of a judge of County Courts, magistrate, or justice, and has not been already visited by such judge, magistrate, or justice, the lunatic shall have the right either to be visited by or to be taken before a judge, magistrate, or justice, having jurisdiction within the district, unless the medical superintendent of the asylum or hospital, or the medical proprietor or attendant of the house, or the medical attendant of the single patient, shall sign a certificate in writing that such right would be prejudicial to the lunatic, and shall send the certificate to the judge, magistrate, or justice. If such certificate is not signed the superintendent or proprietor of the asylum, hospital, or house, or the person having charge of the lunatic as a single patient shall, within 24 hours after the lunatic's reception, give him notice in writing of such right, and if the lunatic within seven days after his reception desires to exercise such right, the superintendent, or proprietor, or person having charge of the lunatic as a single patient, shall forthwith give notice in writing thereof to the judge, magistrate, or justice, who shall thereupon either visit the lunatic or procure the lunatic to be brought before him by the superintendent, proprietor, or other person. If any superintendent or proprietor of an asylum, hospital, or house, or any person having charge of a single patient omits to give either of the notices mentioned, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour."
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsuggested some verbal Amendments in the new provisions of the Lord Chancellor.
LORD HALSBURYsaid he would undertake to consider the Amendments and to make them, if he could, on the Report stage.

871
The Report of the Amendments to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to printed as amended. (No. 34.)

TRURO BISHOPRIC AND CHAPTER ACTS

  AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Bishopric of Truro Act, 1876, and the Truro Chapter Act, 1878—Was presented by The Lord Bishop of Truro; read 1a. (No. 33.)
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter after Ten o'clock.