Sitting of 29 February 1888

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Town Holdings, nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Fising in Rivers*[152]; Nonconformist Marriages(Attendance of Registrars)*[153];
1732
Factory and Workshops Act (1878) Amendment * [154].
Second Reading—Fishery Acts Amendment (Ireland)* [32].

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (RULES OF PROCEDURE).—IX. DIVISIONS.
    RESOLUTION [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]

      THIRD NIGHT
      Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [28th February],
      "That Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, may, at his discretion, take the Vote of the House or Committee by calling upon the Members who support, and who challenge his decision, successively to rise in their places; and he shall thereupon, as he thinks fit, either declare the determination of the House or Committee, or name Tellers for a Division."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
      And which Amendment was,
      To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words" it be in the discretion of Mr. Speaker or the Chairman to take the Vote of the House in the following manner:—He shall, on his decision being challenged, forthwith order the doors to be closed, whereupon he shall call upon the Members who support and who challenge his decision successively to rise in their places, and he shall proceed to count them one by one in an audible voice. At the conclusion of such count he shall declare the determination of the House or Committee."—(Mr. T. P. Gill.)
      Question again proposed,
      "That the words 'Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, may, at his discretion, take the Vote of the House or Committee by calling upon the Members who support, and who challenge his decision, successively to rise in their places; and, 'stand part of the Question."
      Debate resumed.
      MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that this Rule differed entirely in gravity from any of the Rules, which preceded it. All the other Rules, good or bad, were within the competence of the House, as only affecting the order of Business; but this Rule affected the right of constituents to know how their Members acted upon any matter which came before the House. This was not simply a question of the right of the minority to register their votes; it was not a question of the numbers on either side, but a question of the right of constituents to know whether their Members were or were not present upon any particular occasion, and how they voted.

      1733
      Up to the present moment there had only been a very brief reference, and that was in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries (Mr. E. T. Reid), to this right of constituents; and he (Mr. Bradlaugh) asked the House gravely to consider before they changed entirely the relations of Members to their constituents. The Amendment of the hon. Member for South Louth (Mr. T. P. Gill) he should vote for, though it did not touch the point he was now raising, because if it were carried it would only secure that the numbers should be known. The proposal of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) who, as he should show presently, was quite mistaken as to the practice of the French and the German Parliaments—he (Mr. Bradlaugh) thought so last night, particularly as regarded the French Parliament, because he had often been present at the Sittings of the Chamber of Deputies, but he was afraid his want of knowledge of the French language might have misled him as to what happened—
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I only described what I saw with my own eyes.
      MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that he also thought last night he remembered what he had seen with his own eyes. He had now, however, got the Règlement of the Chamber of Deputies, which would explain the mistake, not an unnatural mistake, made by a foreigner when he did not quite understand the proceedings that were passing. The proposal of the noble Lord, which it appeared by the Amendment Paper had been adopted by the Government, was also deficient, because it only provided that the number of the minority challenging a Division should be recorded; it did not provide that anything should be done to show how individual Members voted or who were the absentees. He objected even to the proposal of the hon. Member for the Crewe Division of Cheshire (Mr. M'Laren), although he should support it if it went to a Division, because if that be accepted the minority only would be able to record their names. He respectfully suggested that the majority who prevented the adoption of some proposition submitted to the House ought to have their names recorded, so that their constituents might know
      1734
      how they voted. He now came to the question of fact as submitted by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington. As to the German Parliament, he (Mr. Bradlaugh) had no knowledge; but he had managed to fortify himself with authority on the point at issue. The articles of the Règlement which applied to voting in the French Chamber of Deputies were Articles 78, 79, 80, 81, and 82. As his French was very bad, perhaps the House would permit him to translate Article 82 into English, so that he might not mislead the House, as doubtless the noble Lord was misled by listening to something in a language not his own.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, the statement he made was in reference to the assertion of the hon. Member for South Louth (Mr. T. P. Gill) that the practice of taking Divisions by Members rising in their places was unknown in any Assembly in the world. He said that, on the contrary, it was a common practice in the French and German Parliaments.
      MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, it was a pity the noble Lord did not impart to the House the whole of his knowledge on the subject, because, no doubt, he would then have told the House that although there were three ways of voting—by rising and sitting, by public voting, and by secret voting—in every case public voting was a matter of right. He had said "in every case." There were some slight exceptions made in Article 81, but with those exceptions with the details of which he need not trouble the House. Article 82 provided that a public vote might always be had on a demand in writing signed by 20 Members of the Chamber, so that while it was perfectly true that many votes in the French Chamber were taken by the Members of one opinion rising in their places, and those of the opposite opinion remaining seated, it was also true that any minority of 20 might insist on the voting being taken publicly. In the German Parliament, it appears to be not quite the same, but sufficiently nearly the same. He did not happen to possess the Règlement of the German Parliament, but he had on this the able summary of the Rules and Proceedings of Foreign Parliaments which was compiled by a respected and very able official of their own House. On page

      1735
      295, in dealing with what the noble Lord witnessed, the compiler said—
      "At the end of the debate and before a Division is taken, any Member may move that the names of the Members voting be taken down. This Motion must be supported by 50 Members. The President declares a Division closed after all the Members of Parliament have been called over by name, and after a recapitulation of their names, any Members whose votes have not been entered have a second opportunity of voting."
      He (Mr. Bradlaugh) therefore submitted that the suggestion of the Government in the Rule which was now under discussion was absolutely contrary to the practice of the French and German Parliaments. A minority of 20 in the French Parliament and a minority of 50 in the German Parliament had, after the vote had been taken by Members rising or before it, the right to demand that the vote should be public. He was persuaded that the constituents of this country would regard this as an attempt to shield Members from what should be their proper responsibility. He had been informed by Members far better versed in the old traditions of the House than himself, though he had taken some pleasure during the enforced leisure he had in the House, of making himself acquainted with those traditions, that in the Parliamentary Reports which preceded Hansard, the names of the Members voting in the minority were recorded, while those of the Members voting in the majority were not recorded. But it was not only a question of protecting the minority. Constituents had a clear and distinct right not only to know how each individual Member had voted upon any given question, but they had a right to see, by comparing the Division Lists, what Members chose to be absent. The House had no right, under cover of regulating its own Procedure, to do what it never had done yet; if it was done in this case, they might as well vote secretly—vote by ballot—and thus entirely deprive their constituents of any control over them. He did not mean to apply these remarks to Motions which were rightly or wrongly called obstructive, or to Motions made for the mere purpose of delay. He had it suggested to him that even Divisions on clauses of a Bill in Committee might be exempted from the claim he was now making; but he did not feel quite so sure about that, because clauses often involved important principles. He sub-
      1736
      mitted that by adopting this Rule they would be striking a blow at Parliamentary influence in this country, and giving tongue to those who said that the Members of the House of Commons were careful only for themselves, and careless of the men who returned them.
      MR. JOHNSTONsaid, he would respectfully urge the Government to take into consideration the arguments of the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). He (Mr. Johnston) was entirely in accord with the views propounded by the hon. Member. It would be a dangerous thing if, by any course of proceeding in the House, Members were enabled to give secret votes; in fact, it would probably endanger the seats of some hon. Members, because it might become a disputed question how the majority on a given subject was made up. He hoped the Government would consider how they might modify this Rule, so that every hon. Member of the House might have his name recorded in a Division.
      MR. CHILDERSsaid, he did not apologize for taking part in the discussion, because, with one exception, he was the senior Member of the House present. He could, therefore, speak with some little experience, and also as one who had very carefully studied the Parliamentary history of former days. He could confirm what the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had said, as to finding in the all-authoritative records of the proceedings of Parliament for more than a century the names of the minorities in all important divisions given. It frequently happened that when great questions were first mooted they were supported by very few Members. Public opinion grew, numbers increased and multiplied, and it was important, historically, that the names of original minorities should be recorded. It was important that constituents should not be deprived of the means of knowing who those Members were who had voted for any particular reform. The recording of the names of large majorities did not appear to him to be a matter of very great importance. There was nothing so irksome as the taking of Divisions in which there were vast majorities. The House would remember that the larger the majority the more

      1737
      time a Division took, and therefore in that respect he went entirely with the object of the Rule. Let him. State how the matter stood, A Standing Order, adopted in 1882, stated—
      "When, after the House has been cleared for a Division, upon a Motion for the Adjournment of a Debate, or of the House during any Debate, or that the Chairman of a Committee do report Progress, or do leave the Chair, the decision of Mr. Speaker, or of the Chairman of a Committee, that the Ayes or Noes having it, is challenged, Mr. Speaker or the Chairman may, after the lapse of Two Minutes, as indicated by the sand-glass, call upon the Members challenging it to rise in their places, and, if they be less than Twenty in a House of Forty Members or upwards, he may forthwith declare the determination of the House or of the Committee."
      If less than 20 Members rose in the minority it should not be necessary to go through all the forms of a Division. What he suggested was that this Standing Order should be made to apply to all Motions and that the proposal of the hon. Member for the Crewe Division of Cheshire (Mr. M'Laren) should be adopted, so that minorities should have the opportunity of recording their names.
      MR. SALTsaid, that the point raised by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) was a very interesting and important one, and one which ought to have some weight with the House. At the same time, he (Mr. Salt) doubted whether the constituencies have an inherent right to know the particulars of a Division. The publication of the Division List was a comparatively modern institution. Division Lists were intended more for the information of Members themselves than for the information of their constituents. What he said about the House of Commons practice was further confirmed by one or two matters of Procedure. For instance, till comparatively recent times Strangers were absolutely excluded from the House during Divisions. That was the state of affairs before 1853, and now there was a partial exclusion of Strangers, though no doubt the principle had been given up. The right of publishing Divisions was one which the House had always reserved to itself. He agreed that the restrictions which had been referred to were not in accordance with the modern habits and ideas, but the Standing Order just quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers)
      1738
      showed that the intention of that Order was merely to exclude the publication of names in matters so unimportant and in Divisions so small that it would be a waste of time to record every name. He hoped, however, the First Lord of the Treasury would be able to devise some means of meeting the objections raised. He might further note that as the Resolution stood, it was not quite clear what the Speaker or the Chairman would do in the event of Members standing up and challenging a Division, as the power proposed to be given appeared to be somewhat too absolute.
      MR. DILLONsaid, that no one for a moment could doubt the power of the House to keep its Divisions secret; but he was convinced that any proceeding of that character would be regarded by the country as a retrograde and re-actionary step. As far as his experience went, the constituencies took quite as much interest, very frequently more interest, in the votes, than they did in the speeches of their Members. It would be just as reasonable to forbid the printing of any speeches as to forbid the recording of the votes. An idea seemed to prevail amongst some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen that the question at issue was simply the right of the minority to register their names. It was nothing of the sort, and if he had his choice he doubted whether he would not prefer that the majority should register their names. He maintained that of the two rights of a minority, the more important was not that of registering their own names, but of compelling the majority to register their names. That being so, he thought the arguments used in favour of this proposal were utterly inadequate. As to saving time, it must be borne in mind that they had already adopted such stringent Rules that it was impossible to delay the proceedings of the House if the Rules were properly handled. But, young Member as he was, he had seen questions which at their outside were supported by only 10 or 15 Members rapidly come to be great and burning questions. What was the most important function of the House of Commons? It was to keep the Executive Government of the country in touch with the people, and the Divisions to which he attached, more importance than, any others were Divisions in which the Executive had

      1739
      great majorities at its back, and in which it was not in accord with the popular feeling of the country. Reference had been made to the practice of foreign Assemblies. It was idle to say that the French and the German Assemblies pursued this course, and were they to be told that the English House of Commons was to follow the example of Legislative Assemblies that had no control over the Executive of their country? Even the American Chamber did not control the Executive Government, and therefore there were many reasons, which ought to influence the conduct of their proceedings, which did not influence the American Chamber. No such Rule as that now proposed by the Government prevailed in the American Chamber, but it was in the power of an extremely small minority to compel the majority to register their names in the most public way. In his opinion, this Rule was one, which the country would not approve of, and if it was insisted upon by the Government they would hear a great deal about their action.
      MR. J. M. MACLEANsaid, the objection raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), and repeated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers), that it was desirable that high-minded and far-seeing minorities should always be able to place their names on record, was one which carried great weight with many hon. Members. This, however, was merely a matter of personal interest to Members of that House. Another objection taken to the proposed new Rule was of greater public importance. There was no doubt that in these days constituencies did take great interest in the proceedings of the House. The people were exceedingly jealous and exacting as to the proceedings of their Members, and were particularly anxious to know how their Representatives voted upon certain questions submitted to the House. That being so, it was most desirable that not only the names of minorities but the names of majorities should be published. He, for one, would certainly not vote for this Rule if he thought it would in any case be applied to Divisions upon any questions of importance—upon any Motion put down for discussion, or upon any Amendment that appeared
      1740
      upon the Notice Paper of the House. But in his opinion, the Rule would be applied simply for the purpose of preventing waste of time. It was said they were giving the Speaker too much power; but they had already given him power to decline to put a Question at all to the House. It would always be open to the ingenuity of Members to devise Amendments, and spring them on the House, which would practically be dilatory Amendments, and he took it that the object of this Rule was to enable the Speaker, in such cases, to save time by merely counting heads as it were. The whole controversy turned on the words "the Speaker may at his discretion." He was content to accept these words, because he did not think that any Speaker or Chairman would be ever open to the temptation of applying this Rule for the purpose of keeping secret the names of Members voting on a question on which the constituencies had a right to be informed.
      MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he was entirely with the First Lord of the Treasury in his desire to save the time of the House, but he could not support the Rule as it now stood. They all desired to prevent frivolous repetitions of Divisions upon the same question, and his right hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) had suggested the extension of the Rule which provided that minorities of 20 Members should be required to rise in their places. He (Mr. Broadhurst) did not think that numbers were any criterion whatever of the importance of the subject to be divided upon. He remembered that, on one occasion, he was one of a minority of 7; the question had reference to the exclusion of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). The minority of 7 found several hundreds arrayed against them; but today they saw how wise they were, and how the majority had come to admire the minority for their wisdom and pertinacity. Now, the House would support the First Lord of the Treasury in an endeavour to economize the time of the House; but constituencies were extremely anxious to know how their Members voted on particular questions, and the Division Lists were scanned by electors more and more eagerly as years went on. He was entirely in favour of a registra-

      1741
      tion of the names of the majority, quite as much as of a registration of the names of the minority. They had already considerably contracted the rights of constituencies by making Rule VI., and he did not think it would be wise for the House to further trespass on the right of the people, who, after all, were the supreme authority with regard to Members of the House.
      THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. COURTNEY)said, that undoubtedly the question was one of very considerable importance, and he agreed very much with the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) that they ought not to look to the practice of foreign Parliaments in this matter. But if they were to have references made to the practice of foreign Parliaments at all it was well they should understand exactly what the Rules of foreign Assemblies were. The practice of taking Rules by rising and sitting was very common both in France and in Germany, and it was also resorted to in the American Assembly. Perhaps the House would allow him to tell them his dream of what might be the form of voting when they built another House. There was a cry raised at every General Election for increased accommodation in the House, and some day they would have such a large number of new Members crowding in, that the cry for places would be general, and the Government would have to listen to it. When every Member had a recognized place, the taking of Divisions would be accomplished with the greatest facility. The moment the Speaker or Chairman put the Question, Members would turn on a switch which would denote which way they voted, and the whole thing would be recorded in a moment. There would be no delay whatever: that was his dream of the voting of the future. Now, the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had pressed very strongly the claim of the electors to know how their Members voted, and the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) demanded that the names of both the majority and the minority should be recorded. He should have thought it would have been sufficient for the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) that the minority should have the right of recording their names, and that, so far as the electors were concerned,
      1742
      they would imagine that those who were not with them were against them; that those who did not vote with them were lukewarm if not hostile. As this mode of taking votes was to be in the discretion of the Chair, and as he had the honour to occupy the Chair in Committee, it was to him a matter of considerable importance. He did not desire any increase of responsibility in that way. He should be well content if the House did not adopt this Motion, but having regard to the despatch of Business he thought the Rule might be accepted, particularly if the Government agreed to the safeguard suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Crewe Division of Cheshire (Mr. McLaren)— namely, that the names of the minority should be taken if the minority wished that this should be done.
      MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, it was not clearly shown by the Rule when the decision was to be taken. Hon. Members would agree that the majority in the House at any given moment was entirely different from the majority, which would exist if all Members within the precincts of the House were summoned by the Division bell. If the Rule left it to the discretion of the Speaker or Chairman to decide at once upon taking the votes of those present in the Chamber at the moment, the Rule could not stand as at present drawn. He hoped they would have a clear explanation from the Government as to the meaning of the Rule. Again, it appeared to him that there ought to be some direction or some instruction to the Speaker or Chairman as to the circumstances under which he was to act according to the Rule. Under the other Rules which they had passed, the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees took a certain course in order to avoid an abuse of the Rules of the House, but in this Rule no guidance whatever was given to the Chair. Some such instruction was necessary in order that a uniform practice might be established in conformity with the wish of the House and with a view to the orderly and satisfactory conduct of their proceedings. Reference had been made to foreign Assemblies. He thought it was the Rule that foreign Assemblies followed this Assembly instead of this Assembly being guided by them. But there appeared to be a fundamental difference between their proceedings and

      1743
      the proceedings of foreign Assemblies, was taken by Members rising, and no record was taken of the votes of individual Members except upon a challenge made, whereas in the House of Commons the ordinary course was for every vote to be recorded. He approved of full, entire and complete publicity being given to their proceedings. There might be a case in future days in which there was a doubt as to the decision of the Speaker. Having regard to the future of the House of Commons and putting entirely out of the question the reverence they had for the present Speaker and the respect they had for the present Chairman of Committees, they ought to guard against any possible abuse of the change of Procedure which was now suggested.
      MR. JOICEYsaid, he did not think that what was done in other Assemblies ought to affect their action. Allusions had been made to what was the practice in previous Parliaments, but when they remembered what revolutionary changes had taken place in the Rules of Procedure during the last two or three Sessions, those allusions ought to have no weight. They were endeavouring to adapt the House of Commons to the present condition of things. There had been great changes during the last four years with respect to the Franchise, and it would be a most unwise thing for the House to attempt to detract from the interest which was now taken by constituencies in the debates in the House. A candidate was required to give the most exact pledges when he was contesting a constituency; indeed, he (Mr. Joicey) looked upon a Member of Parliament as simply a trustee. If they did not register their votes, how were their constituents to judge of the way they exercised their trust? It was of the utmost importance that they should not have any secret voting whatever on any important question. He regarded secret voting with alarm, because it was a bad system. Although it might seem strange, he objected to it because it might, under particular circumstances, lead to corruption. There was no greater safeguard against corruption than publicity. That Rule was proposed by the Government with the view of saving the time of the House.
      1744
      He questioned very much whether ultimately the Rule would have that effect. At present there were in the House many Members who never spoke; those who were in the habit of speaking numbered about one-third of the whole. How were the two-thirds to communicate their action to their constituents if their votes were not registered? As a matter of fact, they would feel it their bounden duty to speak. He could not help thinking it would be most unwise to take away the registration of votes.
      MR. PICTONsaid, that the application of the Rule depended upon the discretion of the Speaker. It must not, however, be supposed that the reference was personal; it was to the Office entirely. The Gentlemen who occupied the Chair from Parliament to Parliament were usually selected because they were supposed to embody the general sense of the House upon a variety of matters, but especially on the desirability of keeping order. He did not think they could trust to the general sense of the House, as embodied in a Speaker, to say whether the names of Members voting in a particular Division should be published or not. The very fact that only a small minority took a particular view showed that the opinion they held was not in consonance with the average opinion of the House. It anticipated, possibly, a state of things that would afterwards arise, or it exhibited the feeling of a very small but very earnest minority in the country. He did not think they ought to allow the question whether the names were to be published or not to be decided by the average sense of the House; and if not by the average sense of the House, they could not trust to the discretion of the President of the Assembly, who was selected because generally he embodied the average sense of the House. He did not think that the constituencies would be content to leave this matter to the discretion of anyone, however high his authority in the House might be; and he earnestly trusted that, inasmuch as it was manifest that there was a considerable apprehension on the subject on both sides of the House, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would see his way either to withdraw the Rule altogether, which would be the better course to adopt, or to make such modifications as would

      1745
      ensure that at least the names of the minority should be recorded.
      MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTsaid, he would join his voice to the voices of those Members on both sides of the House who had requested the First Lord of the Treasury to make considerable alterations in this Rule before pressing it to a Division. He was of opinion that in the regular course of Business the names voting on both sides should be recorded. [Mr. W. H. Smith: Hear, hear!] The right hon. Gentleman cheered that statement; all that seemed to be required was that the evident desire of the First Lord of the Treasury should be clearly and distinctly expressed in the Rule At the present moment it did not seem to be so. A considerable difference would be effected between the position of a Member now and his position in future, so far as his relations with, his constituents were concerned, if this Rule passed. There was no doubt that the British Parliament was the Mother Parliament, but they would be extremely foolish if they refused to look to the experience of newer Assemblies as regarded the working of Rules. The references to the French and German Assemblies had been very interesting, and they could not do better than learn from what took place in other Assemblies, though no doubt they were only copies of this. All that was required was that the general wish of the House should be given effect to, and that being so, he did not think they would be going too far if they distinctly provided that this means of taking Divisions should be confined to what were called interlocutory or dilatory Motions—Motions which were practically an abuse of the forms of the House.
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, that perhaps it would be convenient he should rise now, after the very full and interesting discussion, to endeavour to bring the House to a conclusion on a question in which the House was very much more interested than the Government. He quite admitted the interest constituencies took in this question. He was fully aware that constituents did look to the course of Business in the House with far greater interest than formerly. If there was one circumstance which was brought home more fully to his mind than
      1746
      another during the last year of Parliament, it was that the constituencies had come to regard the conduct of Business in the House of Commons as something which was altogether different from that which any other business assemblies adopted. One complaint which the constituencies formulated was against the apparent inability of the House of Commons to conduct its Business in a business-like way. Well, now, what was the gist of the opposition to this Rule? The opposition rested upon the assumption that the Speaker or the Chairman would not exercise his discretion with due regard to the public interest, and to the conduct of Business in the House of Commons as a deliberating Assembly, as an Assembly in which the minority had rights equal to those of the majority, as an Assembly which had been charged with the great interests of that great Empire. He could not conceive it possible that the Speaker or the Chairman would, at any time, exercise this power placed in his hands so as to prevent a record of the opinion of the minority on the second reading of a Bill, or upon a substantive Motion, or upon matters of any importance. He considered that the use of this power would be made only when obstructive or dilatory Motions were made, when the same question was raised over and over again in the many different forms in which it was possible under the Rules of the House to raise a question. It must be within the knowledge of hon. Members when this had been the case frequently. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House had complained of that being done, and it was for the House to say whether it was desirable that this course of proceeding which had prevailed during past Sessions should be repeated. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had spoken of the necessity of protecting minorities. During the greater part of his (Mr. W. H. Smith's) Parliamentary life he had been in a minority; but he did not believe that minorities ought to resist Public Business as they had done in recent years. He did not think any public interest was served by it. On the contrary, he believed that if a minority had sufficient opportunity of recording its protest on questions of vital importance, and if the names were recorded as the present

      1747
      practice of the House permitted—if the majority were bound, as they would be bound, to record their votes, he believed all the interests which were bound up in this great question would be studied. Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House appeared to have ignored the fact that there was a Press watching them from the Gallery, and that it was careful and anxious to record everything that occurred in the House. It would be difficult for a minority to take any course which would not be recorded adequately by the Press, even if it was recorded by the Division Clerk. The aim the Government had in view was to prevent frivolous, vexatious, factious Divisions—to prevent the waste of time which had occurred in recent Sessions. They had no desire to prevent the recording of votes, and he did not think the Speaker or the Chairman would exercise his power to prevent the recording of votes on any question which was of moment or importance to the country, however small the minority might be. With the view of giving that security which the House thought desirable, he was prepared to move "that this Rule should not apply to the stages of a Bill, or to a substantive Motion in the House." In this way a Division would always be taken upon the second reading of a Bill, and also upon a substantive Motion. It was, however, for the House itself to decide whether it would take such steps as were necessary for the efficient prosecution of Business. Looking to the waste of time which had occurred in the past, he thought the House would do well to adopt the proposal the Government had made.
      MR. BRYCEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury stated that he could not believe that this Rule would be used except for the purpose of preventing frivolous and vexatious and factious Divisions; the right hon. Gentleman conceived its object would be to check obstructive and dilatory Motions. If that were so, why did not the Government embody in the Rule the very words the right hon. Gentleman had just used? If they did, all the objections of hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House would disappear. That was what they wanted to secure; but, instead of that, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Rule should
      1748
      only apply to Divisions other than those taken on the stages of Bills or on substantive Motions. That seemed to make the state of matters worse, for if they expressed certain circumstances, they naturally excluded all others that were not mentioned. There might often be Divisions on subjects which were not on the stages of Bills or on substantive Motions in which hon. Members of the House might well desire to have their names recorded. The proposed modifications of the right hon. Gentleman would, he thought, increase the objection of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, because they would practically negative the view the right hon. Gentleman had just expressed.
      MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, they could not on the Opposition side of the House accept the alteration of the Rule as rendering it in any sense satisfactory. The whole Rule which was before them for discussion just now—for he took it that the individual Amendment had not been brought forward much in the discussion —was one which would affect the constituencies rather than the internal arrangements of the House. No doubt there had been and were Motions made in the House more or less frivolous in their character; but when they came to decide what were frivolous or not they found it a very difficult question. There was no statement in the Rule as on the Paper, or as proposed to be amended, indicating that Motions of a frivolous nature were to be excluded. He had been in the House when a Motion for Adjournment was the only opportunity when an opinion could be expressed on the merits of a measure, and he had been present when an important Amendment had been voted upon which, if the wishes of the vast majority of the House had been consulted, and Mr. Speaker had had any discretion in the matter, would never have been put to the vote. He (Mr. Stuart) had listened for some positive apology for this Resolution. None of the Amendments made the Resolution any more acceptable to him, and when the time came he should vote against it, notwithstanding that he desired as much as any Member of the House to expedite the Business of the House. He believed, however, that in passing the Resolution they were taking

      1749
      a dangerous step, and one which entirely infringed on what were if not legally, at any rate admittedly, the rights of constituencies.
      SIR ARCHIBALD CAMPBELLsaid, he agreed with what had been said as to the responsibility of Members to their constituencies. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House told them he wished the Rule to be passed for the purpose of expediting the Business of the House, and he (Sir Archibald Campbell) must say that he thought that if the Rule passed as it stood it would not expedite the Business of the House. It was perfectly certain that there would be heart-burnings on the part of the minority that would culminate in other Motions and other measures, and cause a greater amount of obstruction in the House than had ever before been experienced. Then, what was to be the minority? How was it to be limited? A minority might be large in number, though appearing small when compared with the number of hon. Members in the House at the time. Was there to be a limit of numbers beyond which the majority might challenge a Division? He thought the concensus of opinion on that (the Ministerial) side of the House was against the Rule, and he should be obliged to vote against it as it stood.
      MR. J. O'CONNORsaid, he desired to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House had conceded very little to the concensus of opinion to which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had alluded. The speakers generally from that (the Ministerial) side of the House had declared their objection to the Rule and the concession made by the right hon. Gentleman was scarcely that which met that expression of opinion. Many questions might come before the House which would be neither the stages of a Bill nor substantive Motions, but which would be of great importance and in connection with which the names of those voting should be recorded on the Journals of the House. It was said that the matter should be left in the discretion of the Speaker. On the few occasions he (Mr. J. O'Connor) had addressed the House he had received great kindness from Mr. Speaker and the Chairman of Committees; but notwithstanding that extension of courtesy
      1750
      and kindness to him, he was inclined to believe that it was a dangerous thing to increase the power of officials. Members from Ireland had bitter experience of that fact. They all knew that in the passage of laws of a coercive character through the House from time to time, right hon. Gentlemen had assured them that those powers would be safe in the hands of those who occupied official positions in Ireland. He remembered a Chief Secretary once, appealing to the House for powers of a drastic character, declaring that if they were granted to him he would use them in a lenient manner. Well, the right hon. Gentleman got the powers he asked for; and the opinion of the Irish Members was not only that the same right hon. Gentleman had acted up to the fullest powers conceded to him, but that he had exceeded them in a great degree. With all respect to Mr. Speaker and the Chairman of Committees, he (Mr. J. O'Connor) thought it was a dangerous thing to extend the power of the Chair. He did not agree with the criticism which had been passed on the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Louth (Mr. T. P. Gill) by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), and he would contradict the noble Lord's statement as to what the hon. Gentleman had said in the course of his speech. The hon. Gentleman had not said that such a Rule as this was unknown on the Continent; but what he had asserted was that such a Rule as that proposed after the manner of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury was unknown on the Continent, or in other foreign Assemblies; and that had been fully proved by the ample quotations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). If the Rule now before the House was made so elastic by foreign Assemblies, who had been obliged to frame their Rules so as to guide an excitable people, surely it was essential that it should be elastic to guide the deliberations of an Assembly composed of slow and methodical Saxons. The world owed its gratitude to minorities; and in proof of that many instances had been advanced by those who had preceded him in the discussion. He would point out one minority at least which had earned

      1751
      the gratitude of the Irish people. During the discussion of the Coercion Act of 1881, there was a small minority of English Members who voted with the Members from Ireland; and the Irish people had preserved a grateful recollection of their conduct on that occasion—so much so, that on a historic occasion they recognized their obligation to those Gentlemen by exempting them from opposition at the General Election. During the winter he had visited many localities where there were large numbers of miners and people engaged largely in manufacturing industries, and he had spoken to these people pretty extensively. Last year the Coal Mines Regulation Bill was passed by the House, and this measure he had discussed with miners interested in it. These miners, who were also electors, had not asked him who had made speeches in the passing of that Bill. They did not care who had spoken on the sections or clauses, but what they were most anxious to know was how those who represented them in Parliament had voted. The vote was the thing with the colliers and other working people of the country; but now the House was about to destroy the check which the vast majority of the electorate wished to exercise on the people who represented them. He had no hesitation in saying that if this Rule were passed in its entirety, or with the modifications proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, the electors of the country would regard it as a dishonest Rule and as an attempt to cheat them out of their rights. He would urge the Government, for their own sakes, not to allow such an argument as that to be used against them. Virtue, it was said, was always in the minority. If that were so, let them give virtue its just reward in that House—the reward of publicity.
      SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid, he desired to point out that the Select Committee of 1886 had come to the conclusion and had recommended that when the minority numbered more than 40 they should have a right to a Division. Of this recommendation he certainly approved. It was useful for their guidance; and in as much as what they desired was to save time, he would point out that if they took a record of those voting in
      1752
      all cases, the delay might be greater than that caused by Divisions. The right of a substantial minority to a Division appeared to be generally recognized in foreign Assemblies. In our municipal assemblies, if only one member desired a division, the privilege was conceded; and that system appeared to work fairly well. He thought it might well be ordered that if 40 Members challenged a Division, the House should divide. Of course, he did not ascribe any magic to the number 40; but he selected that as the number named by the Select Committee.
      SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid, he agreed that there was a general desire on the part of the House to save time; and he feared that if the Government should refuse to modify their plan, a good deal of time would be wasted in discussing the question. The Rule could not be accepted with anything like satisfaction by the House if serious alterations were not made in it. Probably he should not go as far as some hon. Members; but he would mention the alterations which appeared to him to be essential. In the first place, it ought to be laid down—as was proposed by the noble Lord the Member for South Padding-ton (Lord Randolph Churchill)—that the Speaker should distinctly name the number of the minority. To that change he understood the Government were ready to agree. In the second place, the Division bell ought always to be rung, and this was an important provision. If the bell was not rung when a Question put from the Chair was challenged, a minority might defeat a majority in consequence of the temporary absence from the House of some Members of the latter. If, on the other hand, the Speaker should take upon himself to direct that the bell be rung, he would, in such circumstances, lay himself open to the charge of favouring the party which had the probable majority in the House—in other words, the Government. It ought, therefore, to be the invariable Rule that the bell must be rung. Then the power which it was proposed to confer on the Speaker and Chairman ought to be limited by some such words as the following:—"If he shall be of opinion that the Division is challenged for vexatious and obstructive purposes." It was all very well to say

      1753
      that the Speaker and Chairman could be trusted. He agreed readily that the statement applied to the present high officers of the House; but they must not overlook the fact that there had been Speakers and Chairmen—and that within no very long distance of time— who could not be so absolutely trusted. He remembered how, some years ago, when an extremely important question was brought before the House, an hon. Member went to the then Speaker and asked to be called upon as Seconder of the Motion, and how the Speaker replied acrimoniously, saying that any hon. Gentleman who supported such a Motion ought to be ashamed of himself. He (Sir George Trevelyan) would not say when that happened, but it was a circumstance within his knowledge. Although that was the attitude of the Speaker on that occasion the Motion was supported by 90 Members, and he ventured to say that at this day was approved by nine-tenths of the community. The fourth condition upon which they ought to insist was that no Member should be deprived of his undoubted right to have his vote recorded on every question which was not a question of adjournment. The country did not care how Members voted on questions of adjournment, but cared very much to know how they voted on all other questions. If the Government would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Crewe Division of Cheshire (Mr. M'Laren), the objections now felt to the Rule by a great many hon. Members would be removed. Every one of the hon. Member's objections was cardinal and vital; and, if they were not met, the Rule would not be passed rapidly, and when passed would not work well.
      MR. T. P. GILLsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment with the leave of the House. The discussion had called forth such a pronounced opinion against the whole Rule that he thought it would be better to take the Division on the Main Question.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that, in order to remove one debateable point from the discussion of the Rule, he would move, in line 1, after the word "may," to add "after the lapse of two minutes as indicated by the sand-glass."
      MR. W. H. SMITH: Agreed.
      Amendment proposed, in line 1, after the word "may," to insert the words "after the lapse of two minutes as indicated by the sand-glass."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he would now move an Amendment to omit the words "at his discretion," for the purpose of inserting the words "if he shall be of opinion that a Division is called for dilatory or obstructive purposes." His object was to define the discretion of Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Committees—to restrict its exercise to Divisions called for purely dilatory, obstructive, and vexatious purposes.
      Amendment proposed,
      In line 1, to omit the words "at his discretion," in order to insert the words" if he shall be of opinion that a Division is called for dilatory or obstructive purposes."—(Sir. Shaw Lefevre.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Rule."
      MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the best method of accomplishing the right hon. Gentleman's view would be by substituting for "at his discretion "the words" if in his opinion a Division is frivolously or vexatiously claimed."
      MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he would accept those words.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. DILLONsaid, that before the Amendment was put, he should like to ask whether by carrying it the House would be committing itself to any part of the Rule, or depriving itself of the right of voting on the whole Rule?
      MR. SPEAKER: When the Amendments have been disposed of, the whole Question will be put as amended.
      Amendment proposed,
      In line 1, to leave out the words "at his discretion," in order to insert" if in his opinion the Division is frivolously or vexatiously claimed."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
      Question proposed, "That the words 'at his discretion' stand part of the Question."
      MR. DILLONsaid, that no doubt those words, to a small extent, modified

      1755
      the objectionable character of the Rule; but he should still object to the proposal for the reason, if for no other, that if the new Rules were carried out to their fullest extent, the words would be absolutely unnecessary, the Speaker and Chairman having been given power by a previous Rule to refuse to put the Question at all if it was frivolous or vexatious.
      MR. W. H. SMITH: That is only so far as Motions for Adjournment are concerned.
      MR. DILLONsaid, that before Mr. Speaker could refuse to put the Question the Motion should be of an unmistakeably frivolous and vexatious character; but he (Mr. Dillon) imagined that there might be questions put in the House which the majority might consider of a frivolous and vexatious character, but as to which it might afterwards turn out that the minority had been in the right. What security had the minority that Mr. Speaker would not take the view of a large majority, and refuse to allow them to proceed? He took it that the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury was a fair specimen of the average mind of Members of the House, even when elevated to the Chair, and they knew how often the right hon. Gentleman had exercised his powers to the full for the purpose of stopping debate. It was on the details of Bills and in Committee of Supply that minorities had to struggle for the acceptance of their views, and the real power of the minority consisted in the forcing of Divisions which compelled the majority to vote. How would the minority be able to force upon the attention of the House matters which they knew to be important, and which in the end proved to be important, against the wish of the majority? No doubt it was always an annoyance to the majority to be checked in its operations; but they must not refuse to recognize the useful function of a minority in checking the majority, and in drawing the attention of the country to the course it was pursuing. That illustration, which showed that it was not always upon second readings and substantive Motions that struggles took place in the House, was furnished by what occurred in the case of what was known as the Healy Clause, introduced as an Amendment to the Land Act of
      1756
      1881. That clause had been the battle cry in Ireland ever since it was passed; but it was resisted by the majority, and how could Mr. Speaker have acknowledge of Ireland which would enable him to say that such an Amendment was frivolous or not? If this Rule had been in existence, Mr. Speaker might have prevented the hon. Member from carrying that Amendment. And, in the same way, Members might be prevented from putting Resolutions relating to millions of money. In his knowledge, many Motions had been carried which, when they were first brought forward, were shouted down by majorities. Take the case of flogging in the Army, which was a still stronger illustration of what he meant. In that case a small lot of Members had stood out against the majority, and in a fortnight not only did the majority come round to their view, but the whole country. Although he said that the Rule would be a great deal improved by the Amendments, which had been made, he should prefer the issue to be taken upon the proposal as it originally stood. He believed that the whole course of increasing the powers of the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees not absolutely necessary was a wrong and evil course. The less power the Chair had to interfere with their proceedings the better. The Chair might be impartial, but times had been in the House when the occupant of the Chair had not been impartial; indeed, the struggle at the commencement of a Parliament was always to secure the Chair by nominating the Speaker. His belief was that human nature was so constituted that if they made the Chair too powerful they would inevitably create a strong Party struggle for the possession of the Chair, and in the course of time the occupant of the Chair would come to be considered the servant of a Party. The Government ought to be called upon to show some strong ground for this Rule before the House adopted it; they should, at any rate, try how they could get on without it. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House said at the outset—and said very fairly—that this was not a Government question, but one for the House itself, and if that was so there would be no mortification to the Government in being defeated upon the proposal. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would not name

      1757
      the Government Tellers in the Division on the Main Question, but would allow Members to vote according to their own views.
      MR. T. P. GILLsaid, that as a point of Order he should like to know whether the effect of carrying this Amendment would exclude the possibility of an Amendment being moved later on, giving to one or more Members in the House the right of challenging a Division?
      COLONEL BLUNDELLsaid, that we must recollect that the object was to save time. He thought that if the Ayes were asked to stand up, and the Speaker then determined to dispense with the regular Division, he might be empowered to direct that the votes of the minority should be told in the regular manner. He hoped that this idea would receive some consideration, as it would get over the difficulty and prevent the Chairman of Committees or Mr. Speaker being placed in the invidious position of having to determine whether or not a Motion was frivolous and vexatious. He thought the danger would be that the occupant of the Chair would be apt to take a very lenient view of that subject.
      MR. BUCHANANsaid, he agreed with a great deal that had been said by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), and believed that, although the Amendment might be some improvement upon the Rule as it stood, the better course would be for the Government to abandon the Rule altogether. Substantially, under Standing Order 11, almost everything the Leader of the House wanted was secured, but, if not, he thought some words introduced into that Standing 0rder would have the desired effect. If they desired to increase the number of Members entitled to demand a Division, it could be increased in that Standing Order. Under the proposed clause, however, very much wider powers would be given to Mr. Speaker and the Chairman. He (Mr. Buchanan) did not think that it would be wise for the House to surrender the powers its Members at present possessed to challenge Divisions in Committee of Supply, and to have their votes recorded on Amendments to Bills. So far as he was concerned, he should vote against the Amendment and against the Rule.
      1758
      It would hardly be worth the while of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to contend about what would be left of the Rule when passed in its altered form; and if the right hon. Gentleman wanted anything more in the direction of the Amendments now before the House, he would get it more easily by some slight amendment of Standing Order 11, which he proposed to repeal when this Rule passed, than by insisting upon the present proposal.
      MR. A. SMITHsaid, they should allow the votes of the minority to be recorded, and ought not to shirk their responsibilities. The words proposed by the hon. Member for the Crewe Division of Cheshire (Mr. M'Laren) would meet all the difficulties.
      MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) made an appeal to him as to whether it was worth while going on with the Rule, as it was to be amended, evidently thinking that it would be different to what the Government had intended it to be. But he did not know that the Rule as amended, would profess anything different from what the Government had originally intended. They had no desire to restrict the right of taking Divisions except in cases where those Divisions were obviously frivolous and vexatious. They were satisfied to leave the matter in the discretion of Mr. Speaker and the Chairman; but as the House desired to introduce the Amendments which had been agreed to, he had not thought fit to oppose them. If it was thought desirable to insert words making the intention clearer, he should have no objection to that being done. As to the proposal of the hon. Member for the Crewe Division of Cheshire (Mr. M'Laren), he (Mr. W. H. Smith) had to say that he was in substantial agreement with it. It appeared to him desirable, on public grounds, that if the minority time after time got up to obstruct Business, it was of very great value, on public grounds, that their names should be recorded. He, therefore, accepted with gratitude the suggestion of the hon. Member, not only in the interests of the House itself, but in the interests of those who had charge of the Business of the House. If the names of a small minority who desired to bring

      1759
      about frivolous and vexatious Divisions were recorded, the practice would also have an important effect on the country. The words he would suggest in lieu of those of the hon. Member were, to add at the end—
      "The Speaker or Chairman shall declare to the House, or the Committee, the number of the minority who had challenged his decision, and their names shall thereupon be taken down in the House and printed in the list of Divisions."
      All the Government desired in the conduct of Business was to give perfect publicity consistent with reasonable progress.
      MR. MUNDELLAsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had satisfied the desire of that (the Opposition) side of the House—in fact, he might say the desire of both sides of the House—in agreeing that a minority should possess the right to have its votes recorded. He (Mr. Mundella) had nothing to object to in the right hon. Gentleman's statement but the words in which he implied that a small minority must necessarily be obstructive.
      MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he must disclaim any such intention. The Speaker or Chairman of Committees would express the opinion that Motions were frivolous and vexatious by calling upon hon. Members to rise in their places.
      MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that although the Speaker or the Chairman might decide that a Motion was frivolous and vexatious, it did not follow that he was correct in that decision. With the greatest possible respect he reminded the House of the action of the present Chairman of Committees in regard to the South Africa Bill. The opposition of the right hon. Gentleman to that measure had been thought by many to be frivolous and vexatious; but events had shown that he was right, and that the then Chairman of Committees was wrong. This showed that no one was infallible.
      THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY)said, that the discussion seemed to him to be turning upon words of a subsequent Amendment.
      MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Question before the House was that the words "at his discretion" be omitted.
      MR. WALLACEsaid, he did not think that the Rule as it was proposed to be amended would be at all satisfactory. To his mind, they would be better without any such Rule. He objected from the point of view of the rights of constituents to any privilege being invented by the House for the protection of Members who conducted themselves frivolously or vexatiously, and the distinction which was drawn between substantive and merely dilatory Motions did not seem to him to effect any improvement in the nature of the Rule. A Member's constituents had a perfect right to know completely and perfectly the conduct of their Representative. If hon. Members became guilty of frivolous and obstructive practices there was the strongest reason why the full light of publicity should be thrown upon their proceedings. He admitted the desirability of securing the utmost despatch and economy of time in conducting the Business of the House, and he did not deny that delays occurred which might be avoided. But in regard to that it appeared to him that the cure was going to be a great deal worse than the disease.
      Question put, and negatived.
      Words inserted.
      MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he would now move to add his Amendment.
      Amendment proposed,
      At the end of the Main Question, to add the words "And, in case there is no Division, the Speaker or Chairman shall declare to the House, or the Committee, the number of the Minority who had challenged his decision, and their names shall be thereupon taken down in the House, and printed with the lists of Divisions." —(Mr. W. S. Smith.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
      MR. M'LARENthanked the right hon. Gentleman for having accepted the principle of his Amendment to enable minorities to have their names recorded. He was only anxious that this should be done in some way, and was glad now that it was to be done on all occasions. At the same time, he was not sure that the method now proposed would work very satisfactorily, because some of the minority might be in the Division Lobby, expecting a Division, and thus would miss having their names recorded;

      1761
      and also, if the minority were large, there would be considerable time spent in the Clerk taking down their names. However, the important point was gained that the minority should always be known; and, therefore, he would not need to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice, but would gladly accept that of the Government.
      MR. HOWORTHsaid, he wished to draw attention to another inconvenience, which seemed to him to be imported into the Rule. Great inconvenience would arise from the double record of all the transactions, which took place. In the first place, there was the statement from the Chair of the numbers taken in the minority and the statement by the Clerk. When there was any discrepancy between those two records—and they could not avoid mistakes arising—it would lead to discussions in the House, to great waste of time, and more inconvenience than if they adhered to the regular manner of Division. That objection applied still more strongly to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Wallace). Half-dozen Members might say that though they were present their names had been overlooked. It seemed to him that the House did not need any such Rule, which would lead only to difficulty and danger and tend to weaken the authority of the Chair.
      MR. HENEAGEsaid, that the objections that had been made by the hon. Member were easily met. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had accepted the Amendment providing that the bell should be rung to enable Members to come into the House, whether they were to be counted in the House or the Lobby, and any discrepancy would be avoided by the Speaker merely declaring the minority and leaving it to the Clerk to discover the Members of whom the minority was composed.
      MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, the proposal of the Leader of the House was, in his opinion, the only practical way in which the Rule could be carried out. If the proposal of the hon. Member for the Crewe Division of Cheshire (Mr. M'Laren) were adopted, Members who had stood up might not choose to go out into the Lobby, or some might do so who had not stood up
      1762
      at all. It was said that it would be difficult to take down the names of 50 or 60 Members. So it would; but in the case of 50 or 60 Members standing up the Speaker or Chairman would direct that a Division should be taken. What they wished to deal with was a case where the minority would consist of 20 or 30 Members, and the course suggested was the only practical way of working the Rule.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Main Question, as amended, proposed.
      MR. DILLONsaid, that notwithstanding the debate, which had taken place on this Rule, he was distinctly opposed to it as it now stood. He thought that it was altogether unnecessary, and that all that remained of it was mischievous. Although the Rule was surrounded with considerable safeguards, it would still leave to the Chair to say whether the call for a Division was frivolous and vexatious. Now, "frivolous and vexatious" were exceedingly uncertain terms, even provided that it were admitted by the Chair that the demand for a Division was an abuse of the Rules of the House. He held that such a responsibility should not be thrown upon the Chair unless a strong case of urgency could be made out for it. He was quite convinced that if these Rules were left to the unbiassed opinion of the House, without any exercise of influence on the part of the Government, the general opinion would be that it was altogether unnecessary. That being so, he felt bound to oppose the Rule even to the length of going to a Division upon it. He was much strengthened in that course by the observations, which had been made in regard to the debate. He could not shut his eyes to the fact that cases might arise as they had arisen in the past. When the Speaker or Chairman, although desiring to be impartial, were guided to a great extent by the temper of the House, the importance of the questions involved, or by his own weariness, and would be induced to give a judgment that would be unfair. He would point out also that while the last Amendment met the objections, which had been made from the Irish Benches as to registering the names of the minority, the Rule made no provision for registering the names of the majority. He maintained

      1763
      that was as necessary as recording the names of the minority. When hon. Members stood, up on both sides of the House a register of the names of those who voted in the majority, as well as in the minority, should be taken. He therefore felt bound to oppose the Rule by going to a Division.
      Question put.
      The House divided:— Ayes 236; Noes 93: Majority 143.

      AYES.

      Acland, C. T. D.

      Clarke, Sir E. G.

      Addison, J. E. W.

      Cochrane-Baillie, hon. C. W. A. N.

      Ainslie, W. G.

      Aird, J.

      Coddington, W.

      Allison, R. A.

      Collings, J.

      Ambrose, W.

      Colomb, Capt. J. C. R.

      Anstruther, H. T.

      Commerell, Adml. Sir J, E.

      Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

      Bailey, Sir J. R.

      Corbett, A. C.

      Baird, J. G. A.

      Corry, Sir J. P.

      Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

      Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

      Banes, Major G. E.

      Crawford, D.

      Barclay, J. W.

      Cross, H. S.

      Baring, T. C.

      Crossman, Gen. Sir W.

      Barnes, A.

      Cubitt, right hon. G.

      Barran, J.

      Curzon, Viscount

      Bartley, G. C. T.

      Dalrymple, Sir C.

      Barttelot, Sir W. B.

      Davenport, H. T.

      Bates, Sir E.

      Dawnay, Colonel hon. L. P.

      Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks-

      De Worms, Baron H.

      Beach, W. W. B.

      Dickson, Major A. G.

      Bentinck, W. G. C.

      Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

      Bethell, Commander G. R.

      Donkin, R. S.

      Dorington, Sir J. E.

      Bickford-Smith, W.

      Duncan, Colonel F.

      Bigwood, J.

      Duncombe, A.

      Birkbeck, Sir E.

      Dyke, right hon. Sir W.H

      Blundell, Colonel H. B. H.

      Edwards-Moss, T. C.

      Bond, G. H.

      Egerton, hon. A. de T.

      Bonsor, H. C. O.

      Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

      Borthwick, Sir A.

      Elton, C. I.

      Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.

      Eyre, Colonel H.

      Feilden, Lt.-Gen. R. J.

      Bristowe, T. L.

      Ferguson, R. C. Munro-

      Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

      Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

      Brookfield, A. M.

      Fielden, T.

      Bruce, Lord H.

      Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

      Bruce, hon. R. P.

      Fletcher, Sir H.

      Bryce, J.

      Flower, C.

      Burdett-Coutts, W. L. Ash.-B.

      Forwood, A. B.

      Fowler, rt. hn. H. H.

      Burghley, Lord

      Fowler, Sir R. N.

      Buxton, S. C.

      Fraser, General C. C.

      Caldwell, J.

      Gaskell, C. G. Milnes-

      Cameron, J. M.

      Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.

      Campbell, Sir A.

      Campbell, Sir G.

      Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

      Campbell, J. A.

      Gladstone, H. J.

      Carmarthen, Marq. of

      Goldsworthy, Major

      Cavan, Earl of

      General W. T.

      Chamberlain, R.

      Gorst, Sir J. E.

      Chaplin, right hon. H.

      Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

      Churchill, rt. hn. Lord R. H. S.

      Gray, C. W.

      Greenall, Sir G.

      1764

      Grey, Sir E.

      Malcolm, Col. J. W.

      Grimston, Viscount

      Marriott, rt. hn. W. T.

      Grotrian, F. B.

      Matthews, rt. hon. H.

      Gunter, Colonel R.

      Mattinson, M. W.

      Gurdon, R. T.

      Maxwell, Sir H. E.

      Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

      More, R. J.

      Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.

      Hamilton, Col. C. E.

      Morley, A.

      Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.

      Morrison, W.

      Mount, W. G.

      Hanbury, R. W.

      Mowbray, R. G. C.

      Hardcastle, F.

      Mulholland, H. L.

      Hartington, Marquess of

      Mundella, rt. hon. A. J.

      Havelock-Allan, Sir H. M.

      Newark, Viscount

      Noble, W.

      Heath, A. R.

      Northcote, hon. Sir H. S.

      Heaton, J. H.

      Heneage, right hon. E.

      Norton, R.

      Herbert, hon. S.

      O'Neill, hon. R. T.

      Hervey, Lord F.

      Parker, hon. F.

      Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

      Pearce, Sir W.

      Pease, H. F.

      Hoare, E. B.

      Pelly, Sir L.

      Hoare, S.

      Portman, hon. E. B.

      Hobhouse, H.

      Powell, F. S.

      Holloway, G.

      Puleston, Sir J. H.

      Howorth, H. H.

      Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

      Hubbard, E.

      Rathbone, W.

      Hughes-Hallett, Col. F. C.

      Ritchie, rt. hn. C. T.

      Robertson, Sir W. T.

      Hunt, F. S.

      Robertson, J. P. B.

      Isaacs, L. H.

      Rollit, Sir A. K.

      Jackson, W. L.

      Salt, T.

      Jennings, L. J.

      Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M.

      Johnston, W.

      Kay-Shuttleworth, rt. hon. Sir U. J.

      Saunderson, Col. E. J.

      Sellar, A. C.

      Kelly, J. R.

      Selwyn, Capt. C. W.

      Kennaway, Sir J. H.

      Shaw-Stewart, M. H.

      Kenyon, hon. G. T.

      Sidebottom, T. H.

      Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.

      Sidebottom, W.

      Sinclair, W. P.

      Kerans, F. H.

      Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

      King-Harman, right hon. Colonel E. R.

      Smith, A.

      Smith, S.

      Knowles, L.

      Spencer, hon. C. R.

      Lafone, A.

      Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

      Lambert, C.

      Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.

      Lawrence, Sir J. J. T.

      Stephens, H. C.

      Lawrence, W. F.

      Stewart, M. J.

      Leake, R.

      Taylor, F.

      Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S.

      Temple, Sir R.

      Thorburn, W.

      Legh, T. W.

      Tollemache, H. J.

      Leighton, S.

      Tomlinson, W. E. M.

      Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

      Trevelyan, right hon. Sir G. O.

      Llewellyn, E. H.

      Trotter, H. J.

      Long, W. H.

      Vernon, hon. G. R.

      Low, M.

      Vivian, Sir H. H.

      Lubbock, Sir J.

      Waring, Colonel T.

      Lyell, L.

      Wayman, T.

      Lymington, Viscount

      Webster, Sir R. E.

      Macdonald, rt. hon. J. H. A.

      Webster, R. G.

      West, Colonel W. C.

      Mac Innes, M.

      Weymouth, Viscount

      Mackintosh, C. F.

      Whitbread, S.

      Maclean, J. M.

      Whitley, E.

      Maclure, J. W.

      Winn, hon. R.

      M'Calmont, Captain J.

      Wodehouse, E. R.

      M'Lagan, P.

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Madden, D. H.

      Wood, N.

      1765

      Woodall, W.

      Young, C. E. B.

      Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

      Wright, H. S.

      TELLERS.

      Wroughton, P.

      Douglas, A. Akers-

      Yerburgh, R. A.

      Walrond, Col. W. H.

      NOES.

      Abraham, W. (Glam.)

      M'Carthy, J.

      Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)

      M'Donald, P.

      M'Ewan, W.

      Acland, A. H. D.

      M'Laren, W. S. B.

      Allsopp, hon. P.

      Mappin, Sir F. T.

      Barbour, W. B.

      Montagu, S.

      Biggar, J. G.

      Morgan, O V.

      Blane, A.

      Nolan, Colonel J. P.

      Bolton, J. C.

      O'Brien, J. F. X.

      Bradlaugh, C.

      O'Brien, P. J.

      Broadhurst, H.

      O'Brien, W.

      Brunner, J. T.

      O'Connor, J.

      Buchanan, T. R.

      O'Kelly, J.

      Burt, T.

      Palmer, Sir C. M.

      Cameron, C.

      Pease, Sir J. W.

      Campbell, H.

      Pickard, B.

      Carew, J. L.

      Pickersgill, E. H.

      Channing, F. A.

      Picton, J. A.

      Cobb, H. P.

      Power, P. J.

      Coghill, D. H.

      Price, T. P.

      Condon, T. J.

      Redmond, W. H. K.

      Corbet, W. J.

      Reed, Sir E. J.

      Cossham, H.

      Reed, H. B.

      Cremer, W. R.

      Richard, H.

      Crilly, D.

      Roberts, J.

      Crossley, E.

      Roberts, J. B.

      Deasy, J.

      Roscoe, Sir H. E.

      De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P.

      Rowlands, J.

      Dillwyn, L. L.

      Samuelson, G. B.

      Dimsdale, Baron R.

      Schwann, C. E.

      Dodds, J.

      Sheehan, J. D.

      Ellis, J.

      Simon, Sir J.

      Ellis, T. E.

      Slagg, J.

      Esslemont, P.

      Stack, J.

      Farquharson, Dr. R.

      Stewart, H.

      Gill, T. P.

      Stuart, J.

      Harrington, E.

      Sullivan, D.

      Hayden, L. P.

      Summers, W.

      Hayne, C. Seale-

      Thomas, A.

      Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-

      Tuite, J.

      Wallace, R.

      Howard, J.

      Warmington, C. M.

      Hoyle, I.

      Wilson, H. J.

      Hozier, J. H. C.

      Wilson, I.

      James, hon. W. H.

      Woodhead, J.

      Joicey, J.

      Wright, C.

      Lalor, R.

      Leahy, J.

      TELLERS,

      M'Arthur, A.

      Dillon, J.

      M'Arthur, W. A.

      Fenwick, C.

      Resolved, That Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, may, after the lapse of two minutes as indicated by the sand-glass, if in his opinion the Division is frivolously or vexatiously claimed, take the Vote of the House or Committee, by calling upon the Members who supported who challenge his decision, successively to rise in their places; and he shall thereupon, as he thinks fit, either declare the determination of the House or Committee, or name Tellers for a Division. And, in case there is no Division, the Speaker or Chairman shall declare to the House, or the Committee, the number of the Minority who had challenged his decision, and their names shall be thereupon taken down in the House, and printed with the lists of Divisions.

    X.— ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO THE QUEEN'S SPEECH
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)in rising to move the adoption of the next Rule, said, the House would remember that one of the recommendations of the Committee which had considered the question of Procedure in 1886 was to confine the proceedings on the Address to one stage only. The Rule now proposed to allow Amendments to be moved on the Address, but would prevent their being considered on different stages as had become the practice in recent years. By the Rule only one opportunity of moving Amendments would be given—namely, upon the first stage of the Address, and when that stage was gone through, the Address would be settled once for all.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the stages of Committee and Report on the Address to Her Majesty to convey the thanks of the House for Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, at the opening of the Session, be discontinued." — (Mr. W. H. Smith.)
    MR. HENEAGEin moving an Amendment to the Motion, said, he was very glad to support the Rule as it now stood; but in his opinion it was not nearly sufficient to meet the requirements of the case, because the House was left practically in the same position as before, except with regard to the one stage of the Report. His Amendment would have the effect of placing the Address in the same position, as that which it had always occupied in olden days. When an Address was moved in reply to the Speech of Her Majesty's Government a Vote of Want of Confidence in the Government might be proposed, and under the Rule as it stood it would be possible for any number of Amendments to be moved by any number of Members who wished to move them. If this Amendment were adopted it would impose a material restriction upon the time occupied in the consideration of the Address. If there were any points on which a large number of Members wished to support a particular principle, it was very easy to put pressure on the Government to give a day in the same way as it had been given to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) for the consideration of the Trafalgar

    1767
    Square question. The advantage to be gained by the Amendment was in not requiring a large number of Members to give up the days they had acquired by the ballot in order that a few Members might bring forward their hobbies on the Address in reply to Her Majesty's Gracious Speech. Hon. Members had now to run the chances of the ballot before they could obtain a day, which those Members who ventilated grievances on the Address had not. He knew that the Amendment would not be approved by the two Front Benches; but he would point out that the Ministry of the day would not lose a single Government night however long the Address went on. The occupants of the Front Benches got the lion's share of the speaking as it went on; whereas the result to private Members was that they lost every single day, as well as other days afterwards. The House had sat last Session for 15 days discussing the Address, and private Members had lost nine of them, and the Government took six more private Members' nights for the Procedure Rules. In regard to the present Session, private Members had already lost six nights and the Government four; but the Government had taken four nights for the Procedure Rules. It would, therefore, be seen that it was entirely a question for private Members. Were they willing to give up the days they had obtained by ballot for discussing such subjects as were interesting to those engaged in trade, agriculture, or the fisheries. Were hon. Members who had already obtained days to give them up so that other hon. Members might move Amendments on the Address, which were of no interest except to those, who brought them forward? When once a day obtained by a private Member was taken away that Member was prevented from obtaining a first place again, or had to wait until such a late period of the Session that it was useless to bring forward the subject he desired to ventilate, however. Important it might be. His reason in proposing the Amendment was to protect private Members in this respect. Members came down now very early in order to secure a place in the ballot. Something like 200 Motions for the introduction of Bills were balloted for on the first day of the Session. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and he (Mr.
    1768
    Heneage) were most fortunate in the ballot, and the hon. Member for the City of Cork might have taken an early day in February, and he (Mr. Heneage) an early day in March. What, however, was the effect of prolonging the debate on the Address? The hon. Member for the City of Cork selected the 21st March, and he (Mr. Heneage) had to wait until April. This fact, he thought, showed that a large amount of time, which belonged to private Members, was wasted by the prolongation of the debate on the Address. He had no desire to limit any debate on an important question of foreign policy, and if the Opposition or any other Member had a sufficient following, they would be able to bring forward a Vote of Want of Confidence, or force the Government to give them a day. The hon. and gallant Member opposite (Captain Cotton) proposed to amend the Amendment, and to limit the debate still further, and suggested as an Amendment that the Motion should be put on the same day on which it was proposed, instead of not later than the third day of the debate. Outside the House there was a very strong feeling among the constituencies that a large amount of time was wasted upon the Address. He begged to move the Amendment, which stood, on the Paper in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 1, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Address to her Majesty be restricted to a Motion conveying the thanks of the House for Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, and promising the careful attention of the House to the subjects which Her Majesty has recommended to their consideration, and such Motion shall be put without Amendment not later than the third day of the Debate thereon, unless the House shall otherwise order."—(Mr. Heneage.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    CAPATAIN COTTONwho had an Amendment on the Paper to the Amendment under discussion to leave out the words" not later than the third day of the Debate thereon," in order to insert "on the same day on which it is proposed, "said, that he did not intend to move that Amendment. He would support the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) and withdraw his own.

    1769
    He should, however, be glad to hear exactly what the right hon. Gentleman meant by providing that the debate on the Address should terminate not later than the third day. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean the third day according to the day of the week, or the third day of the debate? The House generally met, at the opening of the Session, on a Thursday and was continued on a Friday, and he wished to know whether it was intended that the debate should be continued and closed on the Monday, or whether it should be stopped by the intervention of Saturday when the House did not sit? An article in The Spectator of Saturday last called attention to the intellectual suffocation, which the debate on the Address involved in stifling very important questions. The right hon. Gentleman and himself were desirous of conferring benefit upon suffering humanity by limiting the debate on the Address and returning to the old practice of that House. There could be no doubt that the lengthened debates on the Address which they had had of late years were parasites of modern growth, and disease which were unknown formerly. He desired, as far as it was possible, to return to the old practice and limit the debates to one issue—whether confidence was to be continued in the Government or not. The constituencies at the present moment were so disgusted at the length to which the debates on the Address were carried, that they were frequently reminding their Representatives that they were sent to the House of Commons not to be consumers of time, but to be producers of legislation. He hoped the House would see that, in order to economize time, the Rules must be made applicable to the new circumstances under which they lived. It was, therefore, necessary to curtail the debate on the Address as much as possible. The only ground that would justify a lengthened debate on the Address was that it should turn to some definitely useful purpose—such as turning out the Government of the day. In 1859, the noble Marquess the Member for the Rossendale Division of Lancashire (the Marquess of Hartington) brought forward a direct Vote of Want of Confidence against Lord Derby's Government after the Queen's Speech, and it was carried after three days' debate.
    1770
    He contended that that was the only legitimate form in which Amendments on the Address should be allowed to be moved. There was another instance, which occurred two years ago, when the Government of the day was thrown out on an Amendment to the Address moved by the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings); although the hon. Member got small thanks for what he did. But neither in 1859 nor in 1886 did the Government of the day come into Office with a majority of the House of Commons, and they resigned in consequence. On the other hand, he might quote the case of Sir Robert Peel, who was defeated, in 1835, by a majority of 7 in a full House of 611 Members, but who declined to resign on that Vote. With these examples before them, and knowing how very much the debates on the Address had extended of late years, he hoped the House would strengthen the hands of the Government by passing the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby, and do all it could to check this mischievous innovation which consumed so much time of the House in the first nights of the Session.
    MR. W. E.GLADSTONEsaid, the doctrine that it was desirable, if they could, to get back to the old practice in respect of the debate on the Address, as it was termed, was one which he heartily commended, and on every occasion he had done all that was in his power to promote the adoption of that course by following the Mover and Seconder of the Address in the debate when he had been Leader of the Opposition. In his opinion, the best chance of bringing the Address, under ordinary circumstances, back to the old wholesome condition was to relieve the minds of hon. Members—independent Members—of the apprehension which the experience of last year and this year had greatly tended to create and confirm—that their private days were about to be taken away from them. That was a state of things in which the rights of private Members to their days should be scrupulously respected, unless the House of Commons, for some very great purpose, got rid at once of the Address, and proceeded to the transaction of Business. At the same time, he thought it was quite impossible to sup-

    1771
    port the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Heneage), or the still more stringent Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Wirral Division of Cheshire (Captain Cotton), on the Ministerial side of the House.
    CAPTAIN COTTONsaid, he had withdrawn his Amendment.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONEsaid, he would say, then, that it was impossible to agree with the speech by which the hon. and gallant Gentleman supported the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) heard him rightly, appeared to be of opinion that a Vote of Want of Confidence might properly be moved on the occasion, of the debate on the Address; but if he was of that opinion, the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Heneage), which he was going to support, directly excluded those Votes of Want of Confidence. There were two questions of the greatest importance raised. One of them was the limitation of the debate to three days; and there was the question whether, when they had a debate on the Address, it would not be sufficient for every reasonable purpose to pursue that debate, subject to the protection already provided by the Closure Rule against its undue prolongation; and the other question was still more serious—namely, the question of the exclusion of a Vote of Want of Confidence on the Address. According to his recollection, the instances of moving Votes of Want of Confidence on the Address were more numerous than the hon. Gentleman supposed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had quoted the case of Sir Robert Peel in 1835. Undoubtedly, an Amendment was carried against Sir Robert Peel by a majority of 7, and Sir Robert Peel did not resign. He would not say that Sir Robert Peel was wrong in not resigning; but unquestionably his course was a very peculiar one, and had always been the subject of much argument and much doubt. Sir Robert Peel founded his action on the special ground that he claimed from the House of Commons the right to produce his measures. But Sir Robert Peel had given the House another example himself. In 1841, when he considered that the country had returned a majority adverse to the Government of Lord Melbourne, a Vote of Want of Confi-
    1772
    dence was moved and carried on his part and with his support, and the Melbourne Government resigned at once. He (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) was bound to say that there could be no more unfortunate measure than to shut the door against Votes of Want of Confidence.
    MR. HENEAGE: I do not propose to do so.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONEsaid, that perhaps his right hon. Friend would allow him to state the reason why he took a strong view on the subject, and why he desired that Her Majesty's Government should adhere to the Rule as it stood. A Dissolution frequently arose upon the question whether the Administration of the day possessed the confidence of the country, and the voice of the people was made plain by an Election. What could be more proper than that if the Government of the day had not been able to recognize the verdict of the country without meeting Parliament, as was the case in 1874, 1868, and 1880—what could be more proper than that the House of Commons should take the very first opportunity—namely, the opportunity of the Address, of settling the question whether the Government possessed the confidence of the country or not? It appeared to him that his right hon. Friend had stumbled in this question of Votes of Want of Confidence, and he thought it was quite impracticable to hold an opposite doctrine to that which declared that an opportunity should be afforded in the Address for raising the question of confidence. He was not sure that he could not quote other instances than those, which he had named, but he would not trouble the House with them, because those mentioned were sufficient. Apart from that, he would submit that the protection afforded by the closure, if sufficient for other debates, was quite sufficient to guard those on the Address. He quite granted that the proceedings on the Address had in some Sessions been unduly prolonged, though he did not think there had been any serious ground of complaint this year. He was sure it was unlikely that, under ordinary circumstances, abuses would arise; but, seeing that they might arise, there should be a Rule in existence, which might be readily applied to them.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, he had not thought it necessary to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman; but he had dis-

    1773
    tinctly stated that he wished Votes of Want, of Confidence to be omitted from his Amendment. If the Amendment did not carry out that object, he was ready to accept any words that might be inserted which would have that effect. If the Leader of the House declined to accept the Amendment he would not press it.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was not prepared to go as far as the right hon. Member for Great Grimsby proposed, because he thought that in so doing they would be tying their hands most unnecessarily in the event of circumstances arising which might require that a considerable discussion should take place on the Address. He preferred that liberty should be given to the House to consider the Address to the extent to which, in the particular circumstances of the day, it might be deemed necessary to consider it. He regretted, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman regretted also, that there had been an undue prolongation of the debates on the Address; but it was a responsibility, which rested upon the House of Commons and not upon the Government. He trusted that in future hon. Members would evince a greater sense of their responsibility towards the country, and that they would impose some restraint upon this question, in addition to those which the Government thought it necessary to pass for the conduct of the Business of the House. Many circumstances might arise which would render it exceedingly unwise to shorten the discussion on the Address. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would except from this Motion Votes of Want of Confidence; but if the right hon. Gentleman would consider the matter, he would find that every Amendment to the Address was substantially, as a matter of fact, an expression of Want of Confidence by the person who moved the Amendment on the Government of the day. If an Amendment of that kind were carried, the usual consequence was that the Government resigned their position, and gave place to the Opposition. It might happen that the conduct of foreign affairs, or of affairs at home, might require full discussion; and therefore, looking at the matter from any point of view, he thought it would be unadvisable to put an absolute term as to the discussion of the Address. He,
    1774
    however, relied with confidence on hon. Members on both sides of the House exercising a greater sense of their responsibilities with a view of shortening the debates. He quite agreed with the remarks which had been made that at the present moment private Members suffered much more largely than the Government from the continuation of these debates. Of course, it was impossible to enter upon general Business until the debate on the Address was concluded, and private Members who introduced measures early in the Session found the days they had obtained taken away from them.
    MR. SPEAKERasked if the right hon. Member for Great Grimsby withdrew the Amendment?
    MR. HENEAGE: Yes.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put.
    Resolved, That the stages of Committee and Report on the Address to Her Majesty to convey the thanks of the House for Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, at the opening of the Session, be discontinued.

    XI.—PUBLIC BILLS.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH),in rising to propose the following Rule on the Paper, said, it was a proposal which had very frequently been before the House in one shape or another, and its object was to give to hon. Members who had been fortunate enough to bring forward measures and to obtain the approval of the House for the principle of their Bills an opportunity of proceeding with them. It was, however, a question rather for the House than for the Government to decide. The Government had felt themselves, called upon to submit this proposal to the House with a view of assisting private Members.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That after Whitsuntide, Public Bills other than Government Bills be arranged on the Order Book so as to give priority to the Bills most advanced, and that Lords Amendments to Public Bills appointed to be considered, be placed first, to be followed by Third Readings, Considerations of Report, Bills in Progress in Committee, Bills appointed for Committee, and Second Readings."—(Mr. W.H. Smith.)
    MR. BRYCEin rising to move an Amendment, said, that he had put it upon the Paper in

    1775
    compliance with an intimation conveyed to him by the right hon. Gentlemen the First Lord of the Treasury and the Postmaster General, when he brought the question of private Members' Bills before the House on Friday last. Since then the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House had given assurances that the Government were alive to the inconvenience private Members now suffered, and would suffer under the new Rules, and were willing to give them better facilities than they now possessed. It could not be denied that at the present moment the opportunities, which private Members had of for warding legislation, were extremely scant. Under the system of balloting the chance of a private Member of getting a Bill, however important, before the House for the second reading was very slight indeed. That had not been always so. Twenty years ago, before the half-past 12 o'clock Rule came in force many measures were passed by private Members, and hon. Members would be surprised to find how many valuable measures for the improvement of the law, and in promotion of social and philanthropic reforms, had been carried by private Members. That had now become impossible, and the House were driven to consider in what way they could restore to private Members the opportunities they formerly had. This year there had been brought in something like 200 Bills; but there were probably not more than 30 or 40 in which any considerable number of Members would take an interest. The greater proportion of these measures related to trivial matters, and would have very small support in their favour. Why, then, should the time of the House be taken up in discussing them? On the other hand, there were useful and much-needed Bills which many Members cared for, and yet which, because they were unlucky in the balloting at the beginning of the Session, never came on for second reading at all. For instance, a Bill for the Amendment of the Commons and Inclosure Acts had been brought into the House in six Sessions between 1880 to 1887, and having always failed to secure a good place in the ballot, had never come on for second reading, nor even been discussed. He was confident that if that Bill once came before the House and was read a second time, and sent to a Select Committee, the Com-
    1776
    mittee would be able to go through it fairly, making such improvements as were needed, and the Bill would be passed, to the great benefit of the agricultural population and of all who valued common lands and opportunities of healthful recreation. That was only one of the instances he might mention to the House of the evils they now suffered, and of the evils suffered by the community at large, from the practical stoppage of private Members' legislation. Then what was the remedy they ought to apply? He believed it would be found in getting rid of the system of balloting, and by proceeding only with those Bills in which the largest number of Members were interested. In the first place, it would be necessary for the House to exercise its will and choice by taking to itself the disposal of its own time and saying what Bill should be discussed and what not, instead of leaving the matter to the blind chance of the ballot-box. He would explain the way in which the Amendment proposed to deal with the matter. The Amendment itself was not inconsistent with the Rule of the Government. On the contrary, it was intended to supplement and carry out the principle by which the Treasury Bench was animated in proposing their Rule. Last Friday he had pointed out three methods by which the House might make better provision for useful application of the time allotted to private Members, and he had since found that there was a strong preponderance of opinion in favour of the particular method indicated in the Amendment—namely, that at the beginning of every Session an opportunity should be given to Members of indicating their preference for certain Bills. He proposed that after the meeting of the House three days should be allowed to hon. Members for bringing in their Bills. That was really the present practice. At present most of the private Members' Bills were brought in on the second day of the Session, and almost all of them within the first three days. He then proposed that the Bills thus brought in should be exhibited, and that every Member should have an opportunity of appending his name to the three Bills he was most interested in. At the end of the three days, the Clerk would take possession of these lists, and ascertain, by going through them, which Bills had received the largest amount

    1777
    of support, and in that way their precedence would be determined. If it were found that an equal number of names were appended to two or more Bills, in that case the precedence might be determined by ballot, but the clerks should go through them, arrange the Bills in their order, and put them down for second reading, placing first those Bills to which the largest number of signatures were attached. That list would be made up once for all down to Whitsuntide, and after Whitsuntide the provisions of the new Rule proposed by the Government would come into operation. If a Bill were not taken on the Wednesday for which it was set down it would be placed at the top of the list for the next Wednesday, and there would be no longer any motive for trying to talk out a Bill on a Wednesday, or endeavouring to talk on one Bill, in order to prevent another from coming on. That inconvenience would be obviated; because if a Bill were not reached one day, it would retain its place on the Order Book. Bills brought in after the first three days of the Session could be put down for second reading on a Tuesday, or any other evening, just as they were now. They would be no worse off than at present, because by the present practice all the available Wednesdays were taken up now on the first day of the Session. Next came the question—What number of Bills should hon. Members be allowed to subscribe their names to? It had been pointed out that if Members were allowed to subscribe to all Bills it would be in the power of the majority to get all their own Bills put down, while the minority would have no chance. Therefore, in order to protect the rights of minorities, it would be necessary to limit the number of Bills to which each Member could subscribe. It was for the House to consider whether a Member should only subscribe to one Bill or two or three; but some limitation of that kind was necessary, because it was desirable that all Bills should get a fair chance in that House in proportion to the number of Members who supported them. It would always be in the power of any group of Members representing a particular part of the country, or coming from Ireland or Scotland, to secure consideration for a certain number of measures, and they would be able with perfect certainty to
    1778
    rely upon a certain number of their Bills being taken. The process would be exactly the same as if some impartial authority were appointed to go through the Order Book in order to consider the character of the different measures standing for a second reading, and put them down for discussion according to their importance. He foresaw an objection, which would be taken to this plan, and he would endeavour to meet that objection. It was said that it would lead to lobbying and soliciting Members to subscribe their names to particular Bills; but even if that should be so he could see no harm in it. It was a perfectly legitimate thing to ask a Member to aid in bringing on a particular measure, and every Member who did it would be acting under a sense of responsibility. Every Member who had recourse to that method would exercise his right in a perfectly open way, and would indicate that he was promoting a Bill in which he was much interested, and which he thought the House ought to have a fair chance of debating. The objection to lobbying was that it was private, and done for personal and possibly unworthy motives. Here a Member's action would be open, and his grounds of action public grounds, just like his vote in the House, for which he would be held responsible. It did not follow that if a Member subscribed his name to a Bill, he would be prepared to vote for it. His signature would only indicate that he thought it was a question that ought to come before the House for discussion. The plan also would have this incidental advantage—it would be a means of conveying to the Government in a distinct way the amount of interest which the Bills introduced respectively excited among Members, and therefore among their constituents. If they saw appended to a Bill some 40 or 50 signatures, they would know that it was a Bill which had general support, and that a considerable number of Members took a serious interest in a particular question. A Bill signed by that number would be sure of coming up for its second reading, being debated and divided on before Whitsuntide. They would, by that means, get rid of the difficulty, which now arose, of having measures brought on for second reading, which nobody cared anything about, and precious time wasted which ought

    1779
    to be applied to really important Bills in which the interests of the people were involved. The time of the House was its capital: this capital was now (so far as private Members' Bills went) practically squandered, since it was allotted with little or no regard to the relative importance of the topics debated.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 1, after the word "That," to insert the words "all Public Bills (other than Government Bills) introduced on or before the first Monday of the Session shall be set down in the Order Book for Second Reading in a list to be called 'The Second Reading List for Wednesdays up to Whitsuntide,' in an order to be determined by the number of signatures which shall have been subscribed to each such Bill at the close of the Sitting on the following Tuesday, each Member being entitled to subscribe his own name to three such Bills and no more; those Bills which have received most signatures being placed first, and the priority in the case of Bills which have received an equal number of signatures, being determined by lot, in a manner to be prescribed by Mr. Speaker; and that."—(Mr. Bryce.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. HOWORTHsaid, there was a tacit understanding in the House that only one paper should be put into the ballot box as a balloting paper for any particular Motion; but it had long been the case, owing to concert, of those interested in particular measures that a large number of those papers found their way into the box, and consequently those who had not a large number of friends to act with them in concert found themselves in a very unsatisfactory position. They wanted, if possible, to manage the system so that Bills of a frivolous character which were not likely to receive support, but to waste the time of the House, should be put aside in favour of Bills which were likely to reach a fruitful termination in legislation. The only objection which he saw to the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bryce) was that hon. Members might possibly be urged very inconveniently to support what other hon. Members had in charge; and that it might bring into that House methods which were found in other Legislative Assemblies to be very unpopular. But, under the proposed arrangement, they would have the advantage of their Business being arranged in such a way that Bills in which a large number of hon. Members were interested
    1780
    would have some chance of passing into law, and he said that the enormous advantage of that would counter-balance the inconvenience he had referred to. He would like to see an arrangement made which would limit the power of blocking Bills, which had led largely to the curtailment of the rights of private Members. The reason for the Rule had now disappeared since Opposed Business could not be taken after 12 o'clock, and facilities might well be given to private Members to push their measures between that hour and the adjournment of the House. For these reasons he had the greatest pleasure in supporting the Amendment before the House.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he had listened attentively to a considerable portion of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced this proposal (Mr. Bryce), and he thought that, notwithstanding the clearness with which the case had been placed before the House, the hon. and learned Member had failed to show that his proposal had any attraction whatever for minorities. The only result of the Amendment would be to give the majority greater powers than they already possessed for advancing their measures. Undoubtedly, measures in favour with many of those composing the majority were brought forward by the Government, and put forward in Government time; but if the Amendment were agreed to, the very small facilities, which private Members now possessed, would be handed over to the majority. He had always understood that the allocation of certain days in the week was for the purpose of enabling the minority to bring forward their questions and have them discussed, and that facility which the minority had would, if the proposal of the hon. Member were adopted, be entirely lost. He was, therefore, entirely opposed to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he hoped the Government would not allow themselves to be over-persuaded to accept it. If all the suggestions and additions that might come from private Members with regard to these Rules were to be considered, he feared it would be long after Easter that they would be passed. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House had met them very fairly with regard to modifications of Rule 9; and that they ought not, as

    1781
    private Members, to press upon him their own particular "fads" and ideas. For the reason just given, he trusted that the Government would not give in to these large suggestions, but confine themselves to those which were on the Paper, so as to bring the discussion of the Rules to an early close.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY)said, the speech of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell)—who was distinguished for his knowledge of the forms of Business and the clearness of his reasoning—appeared to him to be permeated by a fallacy. He was quite unable to understand how the hon. Member reconciled the beginning with the end of his speech. The object of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) was to secure to every section of the House the rights to which its numbers entitled it. He dissented, however, from one small item in his hon. and learned Friend's proposal, which was that one Member should have the right to subscribe his name to three Bills; and he thought it would be better to limit the number to one. There would, no doubt, be a good deal of application to hon. Members to support this or that measure; and it would be a considerable defence for a Member to be able to say that he could only subscribe to one. By adopting the Amendment the House would get rid of chance in the arrangement of Business for Wednesdays, and would secure the power of putting forward Bills, which the majority desired to see progress. If such an arrangement were not adopted now, he ventured to think that the time would come when something of the kind would be found to be absolutely necessary. The effect of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House would be that all Wednesdays after Whitsuntide would be appropriated to the Bills which had already secured places, and it was only the Wednesdays before Whitsuntide that would be really open to private Members. It was surely not desirable that such a Bill as, say, the Pure Beer Bill, should secure precedence, and that such Bills as affected the relations of landlord and tenant, the Poor Law Guardians, and the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, which interested a large section in and outside the
    1782
    House, should have no chance whatever. He felt that the mere mention of those Bills, and the fact that they would under his hon. Friend's proposal have some chance, would provoke some hon. Members against a measure which would bring them, perhaps, to a successful issue. He was not sanguine that his hon. and learned Friend's proposal would be adopted now; but he believed the more closely it was examined the less terrible would its effects be seen to be to the hon. Member for Cork. By this proposal all measures connected with social order, and others, would get their proper share of the attention of the House. The plan would give an advantage to any section of the House which numbered as many as 40 Members, and sections smaller than that might at least be reminded that they had little chance now of securing a good place for a Bill in which they were interested. If this principle were adopted, he should suggest that something should be done to secure to a small section in its turn a complete interest in this machinery, so that it should have its full share in private legislation. As he had said, he could not think the Amendment would be adopted now, nor could he flatter himself that he had been able to make it perfectly intelligible to the House; but when the subject had been fully thought out, as it required to be, he felt that the advantages of the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend would be recognized.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, the hon. Member for the Bodmin Division of Cornwall (Mr. Courtney) had commenced his remarks by saying that the speech of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) was permeated by a fallacy, and that he could not understand that hon. Member's meaning. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) traversed that statement entirely, and said that the argument of the hon. Member for Cork was as keen as it always as. But he would point out that the speech of the hon. Member for the Bodmin Division of Cornwall was pervaded by the fundamental fallacy of applying mathematics and logic to the proceedings of the House of Commons. He wondered that the hon. Gentleman, with all his experience, did not perceive that the defect of the scheme of the Amendment was that it

    1783
    must be worked by Whips. The beauty of the ballot was that it was absolutely protected from anything like Party machinery. He thought the hon. Gentleman had made a great error in saying that the ballot could at the present time be influenced by chance according to the numerical strength of Parties. But that was not so; for a Bill promoted by one Member had just as great a chance of getting a day as if it were supported by 100. It was against the etiquette of the House for more than one Member to ballot for the same Bill. He could not say what tricks were resorted to by the Party opposite; but he did know with regard to the Conservative Party, and to some extent the Party of Ireland in 1885, that there was a considerable amount of scruple in transgressing what would be an honourable interpretation of the spirit of the Rules of the House. But undoubtedly the ballot was impregnable as against Party organization, and under it every Member had a real chance; whereas under the Amendment the 315 Members of the Conservative Party would easily determine the precedence of the Bills in the order of their own preferences. [Mr. COURTNEY dissented.] The hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees shook his head; but the House of Commons consisted of human beings, and was not a mathematical machine. If this Amendment were adopted Members would substitute for the English practice of lobbying the practice in America, which was called logging. For these reasons he greatly preferred the Rule of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. It would be dangerous, without the rough examination, to adopt the plausible and, what appeared to him, to be the illogical suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, which would undoubtedly operate unjustly against the chance of minorities in that House.
    MR. WHITBREADsaid, this was really a question whether the House was prepared to sacrifice its Wednesdays, leaving them to chance, or whether they should be devoted to Private Bills, which were considered to be most worthy of occupying the attention of the House. He would remind the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington that the Amendment was an addition to, and not a substitution for,
    1784
    the Rule, and he would like the noble Lord to show how the Amendment could be used so as to prevent the hon. Member for Cork securing every Wednesday. He hardly expected the Amendment to be accepted; but still he thought it aimed at an object worthy of consideration—namely, the use of Wednesdays more profitably for the country, and more satisfactorily for Members of the House.
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES)said, he was glad that the hon. and learned Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) had accepted the challenge that was made to him the other evening to propound a scheme for carrying out the suggestion he made in his speech. The scheme was ingenious; but he hardly thought, with such discussion as could be given to it at this time, it was likely to be accepted at present. He (Mr. Raikes) did not ask the House to decide upon the principle of this Amendment, but its details were such as he did not think the House should agree to. The means whereby the hon. and learned Member proposed to carry out his object appeared to be defective, and required a great deal more consideration. The proposal of the hon. and learned Member was that each Member should have three votes on this matter. Suppose that the Conservative Party of 300 Members divided itself into three bodies of 100 Members each, and that each Member voted for three Bills, there would then be nine Bills with 100 Members supporting each of their claims to precedence. Those nine Bills, at any rate, would secure precedence over any Bill which obtained even the unanimous support of the Party led by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), consisting of only 85 Members. If the official Opposition of 200 Members similarly divided itself into two bodies of 100 Members each, they would secure six Bills with 100 votes each in favour of their precedence. Thus there would be 15 Bills with priority over any Bills supported by the whole Irish Party opposite. The Scotch Members opposite would fare still worse, for they only numbered 45. The effect, therefore, of the proposed Rule would be to give the Government of the day and the regular Opposition the absolute control of all the Wednesdays of the Session, and enable them to decide what Bills should

    1785
    be taken on Wednesdays. The Rule would prove destructive to the rights of minorities. It would prevent new questions being brought forward, for the assistance of the Whips would be confined to old stock measures, which had secured the support of each Party. The hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees had suggested an alteration of the hon. and learned Member for South Aberdeen's proposed Rule by limiting each Member to one vote. But this would not remove the objections to the vote. It would lead to practices very similar to the scandalous proceedings at a charity election, where the supporters of one candidate came down and obtained votes in return for promises of their own votes at subsequent or other elections. It would lead to the system of purchase and exchange of votes, and a Member when asked to put his name down in support of a Bill would ask for the promise of a vote in return for some other Bill in which he himself was interested. There were certain political clubs, the election to which was conducted in the following manner. There were, say, 36 members of the committee, and a candidate to succeed must obtain 24 votes. All the members of the committee could vote whether present or not, and those who were present gave their proxies to the managers of the party. The consequence was that frequently, if all the members present were to vote for a candidate, he would not get in unless he received the support of the managers of the Party. Similarly, if this Rule were to be adopted, a private Member's Bill would probably not get the requisite number of votes to secure a Wednesday unless it obtained the support of the Government Whip or of the Opposition Whip, and independent Members would be at a very great disadvantage. The hon. and learned Member for South Aberdeen had raised a very important point, and he hoped he would be satisfied with the platonic support that his proposal had met with from the Chairman of Ways and Means. The subject was one that deserved further consideration, and it could well wait till next Session. Neither the proposal of the hon. and learned Member in its original form nor as altered by the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means could be accepted by the Government, and he
    1786
    hoped the hon. and learned Member for South Aberdeen would withdraw it.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General had described the arrangement proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) as unnatural and accidental; but he (Mr. Childers) should say that if there was anything unnatural and accidental in the matter it was the present system of the ballot, on the chance of which measures of the utmost importance now depended. The proposal of his hon. and learned Friend was an attempt to see whether the present waste of public time could not in some way be avoided. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) had referred to the practice of foreign Assemblies, more especially to those of France and Germany. He (Mr. Childers) had sat in the Assemblies in Paris and elsewhere abroad for days together watching the debates, and on one occasion a very distinguished friend had asked him how it was that the custom existed in the English Parliament of leaving the consideration of matters of the greatest importance to chance. The question was a difficult one to answer; and he was obliged to reply that we were very Conservative in our forms of procedure, and that there were practical difficulties in the way. There could, he thought, be no doubt that as between our way of legislation and that of foreign countries the practical advantage lay entirely with the latter. There were, no doubt, difficulties in the way of the acceptance of his hon. and learned Friend's proposal, and he should himself prefer that Members should only subscribe to one Bill in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Courtney), because he thought that would be fairer to minorities in the House. That this question should remain untouched, and that several Wednesdays should be practically wasted, was what he was convinced the House would not long tolerate. Therefore, while he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would be satisfied with the discussion that had been raised, he trusted, on the other hand, that the Government would give their attention to this question during the course of the Session.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he was encouraged by the discussion which had taken place, and that not only on account of the support his Amendment had received from high authorities in the House, but because of the suggestions made in the course of the discussion which were germane to the question. The objections to his proposals seemed to be founded almost entirely on a misconception of its nature and probable operation, and he thought it probable that if the proposal were fully considered by the House, either in its present or in an altered form, it would be hereafter accepted. He did not wish to put the House to the trouble of dividing, but he pressed on the Government the necessity of taking the matter into consideration, and, if possible, of making some proposal regarding it before the close of the present Session.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put.
    Resolved, That after Whitsuntide, Public Bills other than Government Bills he arranged on the Order Book so as to give priority to the Bills most advanced, and that Lords Amendments to Public Bills appointed to be considered, be placed first, to be followed by Third Readings, Considerations of Report, Bills in Progress in Committee, Bills appointed for Committee, and Second Readings.

    XII.—BILLS RELATING TO RELIGION AND TRADE.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. Smith)said, the Rule he now rose to move was in a certain sense a small matter, the change, however, being intended to simplify the proceedings of the House. The existing arrangement required that Bills relating to Religion and Trade should be originated by a preliminary Resolution passed in Committee of the Whole House. The arrangement had been found to be inconvenient, and he, therefore, now proposed its repeal.
    Resolved, That the Standing Order of the 9th and 30th of April 1772 concerning Bills relating to Religion and Trade be repealed.—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)

    XIII.—STANDING COMMITTEES.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. Smith),in rising to move the
    1788
    succeeding Rule, said, that in 1882, when they were considering the Procedure of the House, it was decided to set up Standing Committees, by which Bills might be more satisfactorily examined than by a Committee of the Whole House. The Government were of opinion that the consideration of many measures might be effected more completely by Standing Committees of from 40 to 60 Members than in Committee of the Whole House; and while that arrangement would not preclude the House itself from considering a Bill in Committee if it should so order after it had been before a Standing Committee, yet it appeared to the Government, and to those who took a great interest in the Procedure of the House, that there would be great advantages in many cases in referring Bills to a Standing Committee. By the Standing Order of the 1st of December, 1882, the Standing Committees to which by order of the House in each case Bills were to be referred were to consist of not less than 60 nor more than 80 Members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, who were to have regard to "the class of Bills committed to such Committees, to the composition of the House, and to the qualification of the Members selected, and were to have power to add not more than 15 Members to a Standing Committee, in respect of any Bill referred to it, to serve on the Committee during the consideration of such Bill. He wished to move, if it met with the approval of the House, a proviso at the end of the Rule, that the Standing Committees in future should consist of not less than 40 nor more than 60 Members, with the addition, if the Committee of Selection deemed it necessary, of not more than 15 Members, chosen in the manner and circumstances indicated in the Resolution of December 1, 1882. He proposed that reduction in the number of Members of Standing Committees because it was felt that a comparatively small Committee would be a more efficient instrument for the careful examination of measures.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Resolutions of the House of the 1st December 1882 relating to the Constitution and Proceedings of Standing Committees for the Consideration of Bills relating to Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, and

    1789
    to Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures be revived.
    "Provided always, That the Committees shall consist of not more than Sixty nor less than Forty Members, subject to the power of addition to the said Committees by the Committee of Selection, as provided by the said Resolutions."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
    Amendment proposed, after the word "Shipping," to insert the word "Agriculture."—(Mr. Heneage.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Agriculture 'be there inserted."
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he had not the slightest objection to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage). There were to be two Committees, one of not more than 60, and the other of not more than 55 Members. If the Bills relating to agriculture were referred to the Committee on Trade he could see no practical difficulty.
    COLONEL WARINGsaid, he trusted that under any circumstances it would be understood that a sufficient consideration of Agricultural Bills would be secured in the Committee by adequate representation of agricultural interests. He said this because, if agricultural interests were dealt with by a Committee composed of experts in trade and shipping, he felt that they might come off second best.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, his attention had been drawn to the working of the Resolution. He pointed out that it would be in order for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) to move that Bills relating to agriculture be referred to the Committee on Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures. With regard to the observation of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Down (Colonel Waring), he (Mr. W. H. Smith) pointed out that the Committee of Selection would be empowered to add Members to the number probably of 15 for the consideration of any Agricultural Bill which it might be considered advisable to send to the Committee.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he was not quite clear as to the meaning of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. He apprehended that there would be a Committee on Agriculture as well as a Committee on Trade, and that was a proposal, which he thought should receive
    1790
    the support of a large number of Members, especially of those who represented counties. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury seemed to be that they were to have a bonâ fide Trade and Shipping Committee, composed of, say, 55 Members, with power to add to them 15 Agricultural Members; that was to say that there was to be a Committee the majority of which would be composed of Members who had rather less interest in agriculture than other Members of the House. That proposal seemed to him unsatisfactory, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would think over the matter and see if he could not establish a Committee for Agricultural matters as well as for Trade and Shipping.
    MR. BROOKFIELDsaid, he entirely agreed with the observations of the hon. and gallant Member who had just spoken. He (Mr. Brookfield) could imagine the case of an agricultural question being referred to a Committee on Trade, by which not only would due consideration of that question be shelved, but as to which there might be a large majority distinctly hostile to the agricultural interest. He certainly thought that the time had come when that most important interest should have its measures considered by a Grand Committee established for that purpose.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question again proposed.
    MR. WHITBREADsaid, he very much regretted that the Government proposed to limit the number of Committee Members. The idea of Grand Committees was that they were to be a miniature of the House, who would represent every portion, section, and interest, and that the examination of Bills by those Committees should not be a quiet examination around a table by a small number of Members, but that it should be a real examination of Bills with the object of getting them into such form as would render them acceptable to the House. The more they put a limit on the number of Members of the Grand Committee the less would it represent every interest and section in the House; and the less debate on and examination of a Bill they obtained in the Committee the less likely were they to have the results of the Committee accepted by

    1791
    the House. This, in his opinion, was a grave blot in the proposal of the Government. He admitted that the work might be easier for the Chairman, and thought the Committee might possibly get quickly through the work; but there would be an absence of that which many minds brought to the work—namely, the variety of information which distinguished this House in its debating power. He believed the more the old system was tried the more it would commend itself, and it was, in his opinion, the only one which offered the prospect of possibly overtaking the enormous amount of work to be done. Why, then, should the Government stop at this proposal; why should they not take the whole House into their confidence; and why, instead of picking out a Member here and there, did the Government not boldly accept the principle of dividing the whole House into Grand Committees to do the work, which had to be got through?
    SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he recognized the difficulty, which the Government had to meet, and it consisted in this, that they had not the time of Members at their disposal. He had had the honour to be Chairman of the Panel of Chairmen selected to preside over the Grand Committees; in that capacity he had watched them while they were at work, and he wished to say a few words on this question. If the Government had told the House, or shown that there was to be a reform of Private Bill legislation that Session, it would have been possible to form these Grand Committees in a much better way than at present; but all they could expect that Session was that there should be a Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons to consider how Private Bill legislation could best be dealt with. He hoped the Government that was in power next Session would bring forward a large instead of this somewhat tentative measure, which would get rid of some of the difficulties that were found to exist when this experiment was made before. As he had said, the system worked well, but the great difficulty was to get 60 Members representing all the various interests in the House upon the Committees, and at the same time to allow the Committee of Selection to man the various Private Bill Committees. His
    1792
    opinion was that the question would not be satisfactorily settled until Private Bill legislation was separated from the other Business of the House. He thought they should act on the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread)—that was to make the Grand Committee a miniature of the House of Commons as far as possible. The debates in the Grand Committees had been good, and so representative of the opinions of the House itself that the measures sent down received its assent and easily passed into law. There was at the time he referred to a great amount of feeling displayed in the House, and on one occasion obstruction appeared in Committee, but he did not think that would be the case at the present time, and he was of opinion that the devolution of the work of the House to Grand Committees would greatly tend to the successful issue of the measures which might be submitted to them.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he had been a Member of the Committee, which considered the Bankruptcy Bill and the Patents Bill. He had on one occasion moved an Amendment, which a Member of the Government told him had his entire approval; but to his great surprise when the Vote was taken that Member of the Government voted against him, and his explanation was that it was understood that on Grand Committees the Members of the Government must vote together. If this was to be the Rule, it would result in the Government having undue weight in questions that had to be decided in Grand Committee, unless the number of Members was considerable.
    And it being half-an-hour after Five of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday next.

MOTIONS.

  FISHING IN RIVERS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Broadhurst, Bill to amend and declare the law relating to Fishing in Rivers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Arnold Morley, and Mr. Coleridge.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 152.]

  NONCONFORMIST MARRIAGES (ATTENDANCE OF REGISTRARS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Atkinson, Bill to render unnecessary the attendance of Registrars at Nonconformist Marriages, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Atkinson, Captain Colomb, Sir John Simon, Mr. Grotrian, Sir Richard Temple, Mr. Gourley, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. William Abraham (Glamorgan), Mr. Thomas, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Ambrose, Mr. Aird, Mr. T. M. Maclean, Mr. Howard Vincent, and Mr. Sinclair.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 153.]

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOPS ACT (1878) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Sir George Trevelyan, Bill to amend "The Factory and Workshops Act, 1878," ordered to be brought in by Sir George Trevelyan, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Dr. Cameron, and Mr. Baird.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 154.]

  TOWN HOLDINGS.
  Ordered, That the Select Committee on Town Holdings do consist of Twenty-five Members:—The Committee was accordingly nominated of,—Mr. Lewis Fry, Mr. Arthur Acland, Mr. Amherst, Mr. Robert Reid, Mr. Bartley, Mr. Baumann, Mr. Beadel, Mr. Biggar, Mr. Conybeare, Sir John Ellis, Mr. Thomas Ellis, Mr. Elton, Viscount Folkestone, Dr. Fox, Mr. Heath, Sir Henry James, Mr. Knowles, Mr. Compton Lawrence, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Madden, Mr. Marriott, Mr. James Rowlands, Mr. Channing, Viscount Wolmer, and Colonel Nolan, with power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum,
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock.