Sitting of 20 July 1888

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Edmund Leamy, esquire, for Sligo (South Sligo Division).
SELECT COMMITTEE—Friendly Societies, Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Hubbard added.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES; CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS, Vote 10.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—High Courts in India* [339].
Withdrawn—Winchester Burgesses Disqualification Removal* [168]; Agricultural Labourers' Holidays (Scotland) [21]; Parliamentary Franchise (Extension to Women) [11].

QUESTIONS.

  WAR OFFICE—RECRUITING—"ARMY SERVICE" ADVERTISEMENTS.
  MAJOR RASCHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the advertisement headed "Army Service" has been instrumental in obtaining recruits; and, whether there is any intention to discontinue its insertion in the Provincial Press?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The advertisement was discontinued from July 1. It is difficult to estimate what effect it had; but it was, without doubt, useful when the recruiting agencies were not fully developed. Now, it is not thought necessary to spend so much in advertising; and the present time, when the Army establishments are ful and recruits plentiful, affords a good opportunity of testing the effect of discontinuing the advertisement.

  ADMIRALTY—ORDNANCE STORES FOR THE FLEET.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether all the details of the naval ordnance stores issued to the Fleet during the recent preparation for manœuvres were complete in all details; and, if not, to what extent they were short of establishment, giving the quantity and description of ordnance store deficient?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The ordnance stores supplied to the Fleet were complete in all important particulars, with the exception of the ammunition for the small quick-firing guns, of which there is a considerable deficiency, which, however, is being rapidly made good.

  COAL MINES, &c. REGULATION ACT, 1887, SEC. 80—REFUSAL OF CERTIFICATES.
  CAPTAIN HEATHCOTEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can state on what grounds Mr. James Hughes and Mr. Thomas Parker, whose certificates of fitness have been sent to the Home Office, have had their second class certificates under Section

  31
  80 of the Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Act refused?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The Inspector has reported that the functions discharged by these men were not functions substantially corresponding to those of an under manager; but the information which has reached me in support of the men's application has led me to make further inquiry, the result of which will be communicated to my hon. Friend.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—THE AIRDRIE SHERIFF COURT.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the report in The Coatbridge Express of the 27th ultimo of an action for slander tried at the Airdrie Sheriff Court before Sheriff Mair on the 25th; whether Sheriff Mair is correctly reported to have asked three successive witnesses, who swore that they had seen pursuer the worse for drink, whether they were teetotallers; and on their replying in the affirmative to have said to the first "Go away, I don't believe you;" to the second "You may go now, because I don't believe you;" and to the third "You may go away;" and, whether, considering the public stigma thus cast upon the sworn testimony of total abstainers by the Airdrie Bench, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The case referred to was one at the instance of an Inspector of Police and a constable against whom a clergyman had made in a newspaper an accusation of drunkenness in commenting on an hotel licence case, in which the officer's evidence had influenced the Bench on the question of granting the licence. An apology was tendered and accepted in the case of the Inspector. The constable's case went to trial. The Sheriff did state, in regard to the evidence of two witnesses, that he did not believe them; but this was not on their stating that they were abstainers, but because their evidence was contradictory, and their demeanour in giving it unsatisfactory, and that, as regards its main statements, it was contradicted by the unimpeachable evidence of several respectable people. The Sheriff did not cast any stigma upon the evidence
  32
  of teetotallers. On the contrary, in giving judgment, he stated that, in ordinary cases, a teetotaller's evidence was most reliable. But he did say that in questions relating to intoxicating drinks and their effect, teetotallers were apt to take extreme views and form mistaken conclusions. I may add that the constable who was alleged to have been repeatedly intoxicated has a very high character, having been 15 years in the Force, during which period no charge or report has ever been made against him at any time until the letter was published of which he complained. I may add, also, that I think it extremely unlikely that my friend the Sheriff, whom I know very well, would have said anything against teetotallers, because he happens to be one himself.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—ORANGE FLAG AT THE BARRACK, OBINS STREET, PORTADOWN.
  MR. TUITEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether an Orange flag was exhibited from one of the windows of the Constabulary barrack in Obins Street, Portdadown, on the morning of the 12th instant, during the Orange celebrations in that town; and, if so, will the Inspector General of Constabulary take any action in the matter?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, that the District Inspector of Constabulary reported that the allegations contained in the Question of the hon. Member were devoid of foundation.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): I wish to ask whether the whole town did not see the flag out of the window; and, whether the right hon. Gentleman will make further inquiries into the matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the right hon. Gentleman will lay the facts before me on which he relies, I will consider them.

  CRIMINAL LAW—EXECUTION AT OXFORD.
  MR. KENYON&c.)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the accounts in the public journals of the recent execution at Oxford, and to the evidence of Berry, the hangman, before the Coroner, that

  33
  under the present system of executions revolting accidents are occasionally unavoidable; and, whether, in the interests of public decency, he will introduce some measure to regulate the methods and procedure of executions?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to this matter, which has been fully inquired into. Whatever method be adopted of inflicting capital punishment by hanging there is a liability to accidents. Upon the whole, the accidents that may occur in the system followed at Oxford are less objectionable and revolting than those to which a system involving a shorter drop is liable. I should be unable to suggest a measure which would make these deplorable accidents impossible. I am glad to state that they are not frequent.

  WAR OFFICE—COMPULSORY RETIREMENT OF COMMANDING OFFICERS.
  GENERAL FRASERasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is the intention of the Government shortly to alter the present Rules with regard to the compulsory retirement of commanding officers of regiments, so that the regimental command shall be retained for at least four years; and, if so, whether the existing Rules, by which experienced and meritorious commanding officers are now about to be removed at the end of two years, entailing results detrimental to the Service, and a very heavy cost upon the country, might be suspended?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Under the existing Royal Warrant every lieutenant-colonel appointed as such to a regiment from the 1st of January, 1887, is, subject to age, appointed for four years certain. I explained last year, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), the reasons why, in justice to officers of lower rank, the tenure of officers who were already lieutenant-colonels on the date named could not be extended. I may, however, add that in special cases clearly for the good of the Public Service the command of a lieutenant-colonel can be extended for a period not exceeding two years.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—ENGLISH UNIVERSITY COLLEGES.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether he can yet state the intentions of the Government as to giving any assistance to the English University Colleges?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The Government are prepared to give some assistance to the English University Colleges; but the mode and principles of distribution raise very difficult questions, which must necessarily take some time to arrange. No arrangement has been made for a grant in connection with this year's Estimate.

  SUPPLY—ARMY VOTES—NEWSPAPERS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for War, What is the amount paid out of Army Votes (other than the Medical Vote) for newspapers; what number of newspapers are filed for official purposes, and what proportion of those paid for are treated as the personal property of officials; what are the three chief newspapers so paid for, and what is the amount paid for each; and, if he will give analogous details as to the intended expenditure in the present financial year?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The sum last year in War Office contingencies for newspapers was £257 15 s. 3d. and besides this there would be many items for newspapers at out-stations in other Votes. The expenditure for the present year is not likely to be materially different. Speaking generally, all newspapers are taken for official purposes; and though space does not allow of many sets being filed, extracts are retained which affect particular branches of work. The newspapers of which most copies are taken are The Times, Daily News, Standard, and Morning Post. Those newspapers which are not required for filing, or are not otherwise wanted, become mere waste paper, and the officials for whose use they are taken are at liberty to retain them if they please.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had any objection to state what were the three chief newspapers so paid for, and what was the amount paid for each?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The principal papers are the London morning papers and the military papers. I will show a list of them to the hon. Member privately.
  In reply to a further Question by Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR,
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, there was no public or official or personal reason why this information should be withdrawn from the House of Commons.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORgave Notice that he would move for a Return.

  POST OFFICE—BERMUDA, HALIFAX, &c.—TELEGRAPHIC CABLE.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the Postmaster General, What further progress has been made in the matter of connecting Bermuda with Halifax, Nova Scotia, by telegraphic cable?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES), in reply, said, he was afraid he could give no further answer than that the question was still under the consideration of the Treasury.

  WAR OFFICE (CONTRACTS)—THE NEW VALISE EQUIPMENT.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether tenders for a large number of sets of new valise equipments were recently invited; whether the invitations to tender were withdrawn, and the contract given to the inventor, Colonel Slade; whether the execution of such contract was by him handed over to Messrs. Ross and Co., who had been struck off the list of Army contractors; whether a portion of this new valise equipment consisted of French canvas, for which Messrs. Ross have the sole or principal agency in this country, and whether it was now for the first time used in the valise equipment; and, if so, whether it is usual to give contracts to middlemen instead of manufacturers, and to allow the middlemen to transfer their execution to contractors who have themselves been struck off the list; and, whether
  36
  it is intended to introduce further into the equipment of the Army an article the supply of which in England is solely in the hands of such contractors, and which in any case must be procured from abroad, and might not be procureable in time of war?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Tenders were recently issued for 1,000 sets of the new valise equipment, which are practically for experimental trial. The tenders were, however, withdrawn, because patterns were not available; and, in the meantime, a request by the inventor and patentee to be permitted to make these sets was granted. Colonel Slade has been told that Messrs. Ross cannot be allowed to have any share in this contract, nor can they be recognized as his agents. In this equipment a small pouch to contain a spare magazine is made of French canvas; but that material is not essential to the manufacture of these pouches. I am afraid that, in many cases, it cannot be avoided that patentees should act as middlemen.

  WAR OFFICE—ARMY CLOTHING AND ACCOUTREMENTS—WAIST BELTS AND GAITERS.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has now received information as to the recent manufacture of about 30,000 waist belts and 7,000 pairs of gaiters for the British Army by French soldiers undergoing sentence in a French military prison; and, up to what date did this employment of foreign penal labour at low rates, upon the clothing and accoutrements of the British Army, continue?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Since the hon. Member asked me a Question on this subject I have received a statement from the contractors, whose good faith I have no reason to doubt, that in 1885 and 1886, when there was very great pressure on the English trade, they had the sewing of certain articles done in a military fort where French soldiers were detained for offences against military discipline, to the extent of about 4 per cent of an order which they held for accoutrements; but that they have not employed this source of supply for any work they have started for Government during the last two

  37
  years. As regards gaiters, they made some at the fort for a private firm; and the contractors believe that a portion of them were afterwards submitted by that firm to the Clothing Department. I think the hon. Member will, therefore, see that there is some exaggeration in the Question. But I have no wish to encourage this supply of goods from foreign sources; and I have given directions for a modification to be made in the form of future contracts, which will, I hope, prevent its recurrence.
  MR. HANBURY: As the right hon. Gentleman mentioned exaggeration, can he deny that these are the correct figures?
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that 4 per cent was very different to 30,000.
  MR. HANBURY: I got the figures from the contractors themselves.

  VENEZUELA—REPORTED REVOLUTION.
  MR. WALLACE(for Mr. WATT)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have received any official information with reference to a Revolution which is reported to have broken out in Venezuela; and, whether, diplomatic relations being suspended, Her Majesty's Government have given any instructions with reference to the protection of the lives and property of British subjects in that country?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): News has reached Her Majesty's Government of a revolutionary outbreak in the Province of Guarico, connected with the election of the new President of Venezuela. British interests in that country are at present under the protection of the German Representative.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK—INTEREST TO DEPOSITORS.
  MR. WHITLEYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the rate of interest allowed to depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank will be reduced to £2 5s. per cent per annum on December 31 next; and, if not, what reduction in the rate is contemplated?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN), in reply, said, it was not proposed to reduce the rate to £2 5s. on December 31. No such reduction could be made without further legislation; but some step in the direction indicated by the hon. Member could not be long delayed.

  PAROCHIAL BOARDS (SCOTLAND)— ELECTIONS.
  MR. A. SUTHERLAND(Sutherland asked the Lord Advocate, Whether ratepayers in Scotland who are in arrear of poor rate at the time of the election of a Parochial Board are entitled to vote for candidates at such election, or to sit at such Board if elected; whether Evan Sutherland, esquire, of Skibo, in the County of Sutherland, being in arrear of his poor rate at the time of the election of the present Parochial Board of Creich, in the said County of Sutherland, now sits as a member of that Board, and has been elected its Chairman in the face of the protest of several members; and, whether, in these circumstances, his election is valid?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): This is a purely legal Question; and, in reply, I beg to refer the hon. Member to Sections 22, 23, and 24 of the Poor Law Act of 1845, which deals with the qualifications of members of Parochial Boards and electors. I beg also to refer him to Section 27, which provides a means of testing the validity of any disputed election. Mr. Sutherland is, I have no doubt, a member of the Parochial Board, in virtue of his qualification as an owner under Section 22, and is not an elected member. The electing of a Chairman is left entirely to the Board by Section 31 of the said Act.
  MR. ANDERSONasked, whether it was not the duty of the Law Officers of the Crown to answer legal Questions put to them across the Table of the House?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, he did not consider it was the duty of the Law Officers to do so.
  MR. CALDWELLasked, whether it was not the case that this rule as to the payment of rates applied only to occupiers and not to heritors?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, he stated that he had no doubt Mr. Sather-

  39
  land was put upon the Board as an owner, and not as an elected member.
  MR. ANDERSONrepeated his Question to the First Lord of the Treasury as to the duty of the Law Officers to answer legal Questions.
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I have always understood that a Question on a point of law is one which it is not compulsory upon any Law Officer of the Crown to answer. There are methods of obtaining decisions upon points of law; and it would be inconvenient if the Law Officers of the Crown expressed an opinion upon questions which might become sub judice.
  DR. CLARKasked, whether it was not the fact that sometimes owners were ten times more numerous on Parochial Boards than elected members?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I think that might certainly happen sometimes.

  LOTTERIES—CATHEDRAL OF ST. MACARTAN, CLOGHER.
  MR. KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a proposed lottery for the Cathedral of St. Macartan, in the diocese of Clogher, for which lottery as many as 200,000 tickets have been printed, and amongst the prizes for which are two sums of £150 each; and, whether, such lottery being illegal, he will cause the necessary steps to be taken to prevent its being persisted in by those who are responsible for its promotion?
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked, whether the proceeds of the lottery were not entirely to be devoted to the funds of the Cathedral?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he had seen the tickets referred to, and he believed the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sexton) was right in saying that the proceeds were to be devoted to the Cathedral purposes. He could not do more than repeat what he had said in reply to a previous Question, the effect of which was that the matter was under the consideration of the Attorney General for Ireland.

  ADMIRALTY (SHIPS)—THE NAVAL MANŒUVRES.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is correct that the flagship Agincourt, under the command of Admiral Rowley, collided with the steamship Sestos; if so, will he state when and where the accident occurred, who is to blame, and the extent of damage to each ship?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON), in reply, said, he had received no details beyond those which he communicated to the House yesterday. The damage to the Agincourt was slight; but he regretted to say that one of the marines was killed.

  SELECT COMMITTEE ON ARMY ESTIMATES—MAJOR WATKIN.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Army Estimates originally included the amount for the current year of an annuity of £1,000 agreed to be paid to Major Watkin; and, if so, why this item has been withdrawn; whether his attention has been called to a statement made by General Alderson before the Select Committee on Army Estimates (Q. 4665) that this sum would have to be "got out of the Vote somehow;" and, how does he intend to provide the money?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The annuity to Major Watkin will be met out of the item "Rewards to inventors."
  In reply to a further Question from Mr. PICKERSGILL,
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, this item was originally included in the War Office Estimate. The reasons for its withdrawal were fully stated in the Report of the Select Committee.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS (METROPOLIS)— TRAFALGAR SQUARE.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he proposes to take any action in reference to the specific complaints against certain constables with respect to their conduct on Saturday last?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): With reference to the cases mentioned in this House on Monday, the 16th instant, I am having inquiry made, which is not yet completed. But, as I stated in the same debate, the only satisfactory mode of settling these complaints is for the persons aggrieved to bring a charge before a magistrate.
  MR. HUNTERasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether he recognized any responsibility for the police as being part of his servants?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Most certainly; but I do not recognize it as part of my duty to inquire into their conduct. Inquiries of that sort are not satisfactory unless a public complaint is made. Such inquiries must necessarily be imperfect, if conducted without the safeguard of cross-examination in open Court.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked, what should be done if magistrates refused to entertain, or rather dismissed, the summonses against the police, as they always did?
  MR. MATTHEWS: When the hon. Member says "as they always do," does he mean that the magistrates do not perform their duty? That involves a charge against the magistrates, which I must entirely repudiate.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMwished to know how a complaint was ever to be made by a poor man in this country, where justice cost so much?
  [No reply.]

  LAW AND JUSTICE—ILLEGAL SENTENCE ON A BOY AT STRATFORD PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that the Justices at Stratford Petty Sessions on Friday, July 13, are reported to have sentenced Charles Edwards, aged 10, to be sent to a reformatory school for six years; and, whether, inasmuch as the 29 & 30 Vict. c. 117, s. 14, limits the power of Justices in such cases to not more than five years, he will take any action the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; it is a fact that the Justices sentenced this boy to a reformatory school for six years. The case has been noted;
  42
  and I shall take steps to insure that the statutory period of detention is not exceeded.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked whether, if the sentence was in excess of the jurisdiction of the magistrates, it did not fall to the ground?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that involved a point of law on which he would offer no opinion. He would consider whether the objection to the sentence was one which affected its validity.

  TRAFALGAR SQUARE—RIGHT OF PUBLIC MEETING.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked Mr. Attorney General, In what case it has been laid down by the High Court of Justice, or by some Judge of that Court, not as an obiter dictum, but as matter essential to or necessarily involved in the decision, that there is no public right of meeting in Trafalgar Square?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to remind him that it was ruled directly by Mr. Justice Charles, in his summing up to the jury in the case of "The Queen against Graham and Burns," that there was no public right of meeting in Trafalgar Square; and if he will consult the judgment of Mr. Justice Wills in the recent case of "Ex parte Lewis v. Vaughan" (4 The Times Law Reports, 649) he will find the same view of the law again enunciated.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLasked, whether it was not the fact that the conviction at the Old Bailey against Cunninghame Graham and others proceeded on the ground not that the meeting was illegal by reason of its being held in Trafalgar Square, but because it was calculated to inspire terror; and whether that ground would not be equally good ground for pronouncing any meeting illegal wherever held?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he did not think that the hon. and learned Member for Hackney could possibly have forgotten that Mr. Justice Charles ruled in the most direct manner, and told the jury, that there was no right of public meeting in any public place in the Metropolis other than those set apart under the Parks Act, and that

  43
  Trafalgar Square was a public place, and that the character of the meeting had nothing to do with the alleged right of meeting in Trafalgar Square.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, that the Attorney General had misapprehended his Question, which was whether it was necessary from the decision in the case tried at the Old Bailey to pronounce conclusively on the question whether or not there was a right of public meeting in Trafalgar Square? He would ask him whether the verdict was not based upon the fact that the meeting was illegal because it was held under circumstances calculated to inspire terror; and whether it did not necessarily follow that any expression of the kind suggested, used by Mr. Justice-Charles, was a mere obiter dictum?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was confusing two matters. He (Sir Richard Webster) was not dealing with the particular question which was left to the jury as to that part of the case dependent upon the character of the meeting. It was necessary for the Judge to direct the jury upon the law; and in the course of his summing up Mr. Justice Charles distinctly ruled to the jury in the way he had described. He (Sir Richard Webster) entirely denied that the enunciation of the law by a Judge in directing a jury was a mere obiter dictum.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLinquired, whether it was not the fact that in the case of "Saunders v. Warren and others" it was sought to raise the point for the opinion of the Superior Court whether it was illegal to hold peaceable and orderly meetings in Tralalgar Square; and whether Her Majesty's Government did not by their defence raise the point that the action was not brought within the statutory period of three months, and therefore the question could not be decided?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that if any such Question were put to him he must ask for Notice, because it did not in any way arise out of the Question which he had answered. He was somewhat surprised that his hon. and learned Friend, who himself was an ex-Law Officer of the Crown, should have thought fit to refer to advice given to the Government, as to which he knew
  44
  perfectly well that the Attorney General's mouth was closed.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he could not admit that where the matter was public his hon. and learned Friend had a right to point out that he had given no Notice of this Question; but, in fact, he had had no intention of asking the Question until he came down to the House, and was informed that it was a very serious matter affecting the peace of the community.
  An hon. MEMBER: Move the Adjournment.
  MR. CONYBEAREwished to know whether it was the case that Sir Charles Warren had issued another Proclamation; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department could state the terms?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, that Sir Charles Warren had issued no fresh Proclamation that he was aware of.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Attorney General in what Act of Parliament the distinct right of public meeting in the Parks or open spaces in London was laid down; and whether a Proclamation prohibiting a public meeting in London would make it illegal in the absence of any other reason?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he must have Notice of that Question.
  MR. LABOUCHEREcould not understand that the right hon. Gentleman should say that Sir Charles Warren had issued no fresh Proclamation. There was one on all the walls.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am not aware of any.
  MR. FIRTH: It is a reissue of an old Proclamation.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMinquired, whether the Attorney General's attention had been directed to the judgment of Mr. Justice Wills, wherein he said he abstained from pronouncing judgment under the circumstances as to the right of holding public meetings in Trafalgar Square?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERasked for Notice of the Question.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMsaid, he would put the Question on the Paper; but it would be too late to stop the meeting already announced.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS) BILL—EXPENSES OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What provision the Government propose to make for the expenses of the Commission to be established in pursuance of the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill; what for the expenses in connection with proceedings before it; and, what provision they propose to make for the discharge of the ordinary judicial duties of the Judges included in the Commission?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Provision will be made for the expenses of the Royal Commission, as in the case of all other Commissions; and a similar answer will apply if necessity should arise for making provision for the discharge of the ordinary duties of the Judges.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my Question?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: My answer covers the second paragraph of the hon. Member's Question.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the Government intend to make provision for the expenses of persons, and of counsel for persons, who are summoned to appear before the Commission; and whether it is the intention that three of the Judges shall be withdrawn from their ordinary duties?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is very inconvenient to answer Questions of this kind without Notice; but I have no hesitation in saying that there is no intention on the part of the Government to provide for the expenses of counsel. The same course will be followed in regard to this as to all ordinary Commissions.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish, Sir——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman has omitted to reply to part of my Question. I asked him whether it is intended to withdraw three Judges for the purpose of this Commission?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think I can hardly be expected to answer a Question of that character without Notice; but I think my answer to the hon. Member for East Donegal sufficiently explained the course intended to be followed. If it be necessary, provision will be made for the discharge of the ordinary official duties of the Judges to be employed on this Commission, in the same way as in the case of any other Royal Commission.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Well, will there be a Supplementary Estimate?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS) BILL—THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
  MR. W. H. JAMESasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any correspondence has passed between the proprietor or editor of The Times and Her Majesty's Government with reference to the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill; and, if so, whether there would be any objection to lay such documents upon the Table of the House?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): There are no documents of the kind to which the hon. Member refers.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether any written or oral communication has passed between any Member of the Government, or any person acting on behalf of the Government, and any person acting on behalf of The Times?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I decline to answer any such Question.

  PRISONS BOARD (IRELAND)—SUICIDE OF DR. RIDLEY, MEDICAL OFFICER OF TULLAMORE PRISON.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which I have given him private Notice—namely, whether it is true, as reported, that Dr. Ridley, the medical officer of Tullamore Prison, who was in charge of the late Mr. John Mandeville, has committed suicide; if so, whether he has

  47
  received the particulars, and whether any reason for it is officially assigned?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am sorry to say that the news is true. I have received telegraphic information to that effect. With regard to the reason of the act, I shall abstain from any conjecture, as I believe a Coroner's inquest will be held to-morrow?
  MR. SEXTON: I would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman gave any direction as to the attendance or the evidence of Dr. Ridley at the inquest on Mr. Mandeville?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he had given no directions.
  MR. SEXTON: Then I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the Government will agree to appoint a Special Commission to inquire as to the moral or legal responsibility of the Chief Secretary in this matter?
  [No reply.]

  LUNATIC ASYLUMS—THE RECENT DEATHS IN COLNEY HATCH ASYLUM.
  In reply to Mr. W. REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.),
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, he was aware that there had recently been two deaths in Colney Hatch Asylum; and he would do his best to see that any defects there might be in the attendants were remedied.

  PARLIAMENT—A POINT OF ORDER.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked for the Speaker's ruling upon a point of Order—namely, whether it was competent for an hon. Member to withdraw a Bill the second reading of which he had moved any more than he could withdraw an Amendment he had moved to a Bill, without the consent of the House; and whether it was not competent for any Member to resist such a Motion for withdrawal, and, if he desired, to press such opposition to the withdrawal of the Bill to a Division; or, if such Motion for withdrawal were made after midnight, the ordinary Rule did not apply, which referred to Motions objected to. He ventured to ask for this ruling, because it appeared in the Votes that the Bill the second reading of which was moved by the noble Lord
  48
  opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) was withdrawn; while in the report which appeared in The Times and other daily papers it was stated that the objection he had raised was sustained.
  MR. SPEAKER: I overruled the objection taken by the hon. Member, because when an hon. Member proposes to withdraw a Bill it is a purely formal Motion, to which I did not think an objection could hold good.

PRIVILEGE.

  PRIVILEGE—MR. CONYBEARE AND THE SPEAKER.—RESOLUTION.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Sir, I desire, with the leave of the House, to address a Question to the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare) upon a matter which affects the Privileges of the House. I wish to ask him whether he admits or will state that he is the author of a letter which appears in The Star—an evening newspaper published in the Metropolis—this afternoon, headed "Mr. Conybeare and the Speaker?"
  MR. CONYBEARE: If the noble Lord will be kind enough to read the letter I shall be able to answer the Question.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I will read the letter if the hon. Member likes to trifle with a matter of this grave importance. It is necessary for the House to know whether the hon. Gentleman is the author of the letter before the House can formally deal with the matter as a matter of Breach of Privilege. I may say generally that the letter is headed "Mr. Conybeare and the Speaker." It is addressed to the editor of The Star, and it alludes to the "scandalous proceedings" which marked the second reading of the Bann Drainage Bill; it contains expressions of opinion by the hon. Member on the conduct of Mr. Speaker, and gives reasons for the hon. Member having committed himself to that opinion and to the results which followed, and the letter purports to be signed by the hon. Member. I have now to ask the hon. Member in his place whether the letter was written by him? [Cries of "Read!"]
  MR. CONYBEARE: I have only to reply that until the noble Lord reads

  49
  the letter in question I can make no answer to his Question.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Mr. Speaker, in consequence of the conduct of the hon. Member, I must ask you a Question upon a point of Order—namely, whether it would be in Order for me to move that the Clerk at the Table should read the letter, or whether it would be more in Order that I should read it myself?
  MR. SPEAKER: If the noble Lord wishes to bring the subject before the House as a matter of Breach of Privilege, it will be right that the letter should be read by the Clerk at the Table.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Then, Sir, I desire to bring before the House, as a matter of Breach of Privilege, a letter which purports to have been written by the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall, dated the 19th of July, and addressed to the editor of The Star, and I ask that the Clerk at the Table should read the letter.
  The said paper was delivered in, and the letter complained of read as followeth:—
  Mr. CONYBEARE and The SPEAKER.
  To the Editor of The Star.
  Sir,
  I hope that every true Liberal will realize the scandalous proceedings which to-night marked the Second Reading of the Bann Drainage Bill. This is one of three Bills of a purely local character, proposing to grant for the benefit of a number of Irish landlords a sum of nearly half a million sterling out of the pockets of the already over-taxed poor of this Country. Upon the Second Reading I moved a Resolution noting the above facts, and declaring that such works should be undertaken by an Irish Home Rule Parliament, and not at the expense of English, Scotch, and Welsh taxpayers, who are already overburdened with the cost of coercing Ireland. I had spoken but a quarter of an hour when one of the Tory rank and file moved the Closure, and the Speaker, who is supposed to exercise his discretion impartially for the protection of the minority, at once put the Question. Such a proceeding I stated later on was nothing short of a public scandal, and although, in obedience to the rules of Parliamentary decorum (which require that a Member should not by passing a reflection on the Speaker reflect upon the whole House), I withdrew the expression when called upon to do so, I have not the
  50
  slightest doubt but that every Radical outside the House (as are most of those within it) is of the same opinion. For here is a Bill deliberately handing over vast sums of English money as a gift to Irish landlords, and we, English, Scotch, and Welsh representatives, are not to be allowed even half an hour's Debate as to whether it is a justifiable proceeding or not. The Government says you shall not debate the matter, and Mr. Speaker backs them up. I hope every elector in the Speaker's constituency will be careful to mark his conduct.
  As I may be blamed for withdrawing my description of this proceeding, I may add that I did it deliberately for the following reasons:—
  1. The withdrawal of an unparliamentary expression does not do away with the effect produced by using it. Nor does it imply any alteration of a deliberately expressed opinion. It remains on record.
  "He gloss' homomoch', he dè phrèn anomotós."
  2. Suspension from the House would do no good to anyone except by pleasing the Tory Government, who would be delighted to be rid of a very uncomfortable thorn in their side.
  3. My desire and my duty being to prevent the passing of these objectionable Bills, I should simply have forwarded the plans of the Government, and defaulted on my duty to my constituency, had I caused myself to be suspended for a week.
  The only effect of the blundering stupidity of the Government to-night has been to arouse (as I hope) the vigilant opposition of every true Radical and Liberal against these mischievous and objectionable Bills. I intend to oppose them to the utmost at every point, and I rely on every true representative of the British taxpayer to do the same.
  Yours, &c.,
  C. A. V. CONYBEARE.
  House of Commons, 19 July.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Mr. Speaker, the letter having been read, I have now to ask the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall whether he wrote that letter?
  Mr. CONYBEARE: Yes, Sir; I did.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Mr. Speaker, it now becomes my duty—and I do not think after what the House has heard that anyone will be surprised at my action—to submit a Motion to the House. It is certainly not a pleasant matter—it is certainly one in which I take no delight whatever. Hon. Members opposite know well that I have never willingly taken part in personal

  51
  matters. But the matter which has been placed before the House by the reading of the letter by the Clerk at the Table seems to me to transcend mere personalities, and to affect the honour and the dignity of the proceedings of the House of Commons itself. I am sure we had all hoped, and had every reason to hope, that the many painful scenes which in recent years have agitated this House had altogether been relegated to the past, and that a new era of Parliamentary manners and Parliamentary life had begun among us. Nothing, Sir, was more calculated to justify such an opinion by Members of this House than the conduct of hon. Members opposite from Ireland, who I do not hesitate to say in the most public manner have almost invariably during this Session shown a most remarkable restraint on temper and on expression of speech, and who have seemed to set before themselves the one object of abiding by the Rules of the House of Commons and of contributing to the dignity and the reputation of this Assembly. Our hopes, as far as hon. Members from Ireland were concerned, have been fully justified. But I grieve to say that it has been left to a Member for an English constituency—an hon. Member who calls himself a Radical, and who claims par excellence to represent the people—to do his very best by his course of conduct night after night, day after day, culminating——[Cries of "Order!"]
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether, on a question of Privilege—an urgent matter relating to a specific Breach of Privilege—the noble Lord is entitled to make such allegations against the hon. Member for Camborne as that the hon. Member has misconducted himself night after night, day after day?
  MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord is bound to confine himself to the subject-matter of the letter.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I was going to say that the course of conduct of the hon. Member to which I allude culminated in the letter which has been read, and which I am now going to comment upon, with the leave of the House. I am sure I regret—and I am sure the whole House, without distinction of Party, rogrets—that it has been an English Member who has laid himself
  52
  open to the accusation of doing his best, either by his letter or by his previous conduct, to bring the English House of Commons into thorough disrepute and discredit with the people. It is not necessary for me, in the presence of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and especially in that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), whose experience of Parliament far surpasses that of any other Member—to insist upon the necessity of guarding the honour and the reputation of the House of Commons, which is inseparably connected with the honour and the reputation of the Speaker. Whatever is calculated to bring the Speaker of the House of Commons into public discredit and disrepute tends to reflect discredit and disrepute on the House of Commons; and more than that, if the House of Commons does not protect and support its Speaker when he is made the object of malevolent, venomous, and libellous attacks, there is no other power in the country that can exercise that duty. It is for these reasons, Sir, that I call upon the House of Commons to take action with regard to this letter. I would more especially draw the attention of the House to certain passages of grave significance in the letter read by the Clerk at the Table. I omit the first portion of the letter, which appears to me to express a perfectly legitimate political opinion, although it is one which I do not share myself, and which appears to be stated in rather exaggerated language. But I come to the sentence which begins as follows:—
  "I had spoken but a quarter of an hour when one of the Tory rank and file moved the closure, and the Speaker"—
  I draw the attention of the House to this expression—
  "who is supposed to exercise his discretion impartially for the protection of the minority, at once put the Question."
  I draw the attention of the House to the insinuation conveyed in the word "supposed," which insinuation, I am sure, the hon. Member for the Camborne Division does not deny. The letter proceeds—
  "Such a proceeding I stated later on was nothing short of a public scandal."
  Now, Sir, has it really come to this—that the Speaker of the House of Commons, exercising the highest duties that

  53
  can devolve upon any Member of the House—most responsible and most anxious duties—exercising them with the general confidence and approval of both sides of the House, is to be told, not by a mere individual member of the public, but by a Member of the House itself, that his conduct with regard to a particular matter amounted to nothing less than a public scandal? [Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear!] I appeal confidently to hon. Members on that point. They will feel that such an expression, even if it stood by itself, would deserve the reproof of the House; but I go on to read another passage—
  "I withdrew the expression"—
  [Mr. CONYBEARE: Hear, hear!]—says the hon. Member in his letter—
  "when called upon to do so. I have not the slightest doubt but that every Radical outside the House (as are most of those within it) is of the same opinion."
  I am perfectly confident that the hon. Member, in making that statement, has altogether mis-stated and misrepresented the Radical Party; and I am perfectly certain that there are a great many Members of the Radical Party who would with one voice repudiate the accusation of the hon. Member that the conduct of the Speaker has been a public scandal. But I pass on—
  "The Government says you shall not debate the matter, and Mr. Speaker backs them up."
  Again, Sir, another insinuation of a most malevolent and malignant character, worse even than the insinuation to which I drew the attention of the House a few moments ago; because, after all, looking at the matter from the common-sense point of view, what is the charge against the Speaker? The charge is that the Speaker is in collusion with the Government in exercising the high duties of the Chair in a partial and partizan spirit. Then the hon. Member writes what seems to be the most deliberate and outrageous insult which anyone could offer to the House of Commons—
  "I hope every elector in the Speaker's constituency will be careful to mark his conduct."
  [Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear!] I note the spirit of that remark, and the House will appreciate that spirit. In a different spirit, and in a converse sense, I express the same hope. I hope not only every
  54
  elector in the City of Warwick, but every elector in the United Kingdom, will mark Mr. Speaker's conduct. I have no doubt that in this opinion I shall be supported by an overwhelming majority in this House. Mr. Speaker's conduct in the Chair deserves the approval of the people of England. I pass on from that matter. I have brought before the House two grave insinuations—what I characterize as a deliberate insult to the Speaker. I come now to the most grave paragraph of all in the letter; and here, again, I have more confidence than I had before of carrying the House with me—
  "As I may be blamed"—
  says the hon. Member—
  "for withdrawing my description of this proceeding, I may add that I did it deliberately for the following reasons:—(1) The withdrawal of an unparliamentary expression does not do away with the effect produced by using it. Nor does it imply alteration of a deliberately expressed opinion. It remains on record."
  I appeal to the House, and to the hon. Member himself. Could anything be conceived more utterly at variance with every sentiment of gentlemanly honour and conduct, than that an hon. Member of this House, occupying the high position of Member of Parliament, should, whenever he uses un-Parliamentary language, in what may be the heat of the moment, when called upon by the Chair to withdraw the expression as a man of honour, as a man of truth, withdraw such an expression, and write to the newspapers next day to say that his withdrawal was a sham and empty formality, that his expression of opinion remains unaltered as if he had not as a man of truth and honour withdrawn it? Now I ask the House is that their idea, is it the idea of any section of this House, of the standard of Parliamentary honour? Are Parliamentary honour and Parliamentary truth to be placed lower than truth and honour outside these walls? To what a revolting and odious depth we have descended, if the House implies by taking no notice of the conduct of the hon. Member, that the withdrawal of libellous and un-Parliamentary terms is a mere formality uttered by an hon. Member to avoid consequences which may be inconvenient to himself, but which may be fully repudiated in another place where apparently

  55
  there is great safety just as if the withdrawal had not taken place. I am sure there is no Member of this House who will defend—at any rate in calm moments—such a revolting and such an atrocious statement as the passage I have just read. The hon. Member goes on to say in the letter—
  "Suspension from the House would do no good to anyone except by pleasing the Tory Government, who would be delighted to be rid of a very uncomfortable thorn in their side."
  The hon. Member appears to me to have strange ideas about truth and honour; but he has far stranger ideas——
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether an hon. Member can say of another hon. Member of this House that he has strange ideas of truth and honour?
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not see any cause to interfere. The noble Lord is bringing forward a distinct charge against the hon. Member for the Camborne Division.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: But, without doubt, the hon. Member has far stranger ideas as regards his own Parliamentary dignity. If the Tory Government possessed dictatorial powers they could get rid of any uncomfortable thorns they might choose—there, there, and there (pointing alternately to the Front Opposition Bench, the Benches behind, and the Benches below the Gangway). The last person, however, who would dawn on the mind of the most benighted Tory Minister as being an uncomfortable thorn would be the hon. Member for the Camborne Division himself. But, passing away from that most egotistical and vain expression, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the hon. Member avows that he withdrew—with the approval of the House—what I characterize as a libellous and outrageous charge on the Speaker, not because he did not know that it was so libellous and outrageous, but because it might for the moment involve the suspension of himself from the Sitting of the House. Now, Sir, it is quite unnecessary to read more of the substance and gist of the letter. I doubt whether in all Parliamentary history a more painful, a more grievous departure from Parliamentary usage has ever been brought to the notice of the House and the public. If the House of Commons is to pass by this charge, the honour
  56
  and the reputation of the Chair will become a thing of the past; and the dignity, the decency, and the honour of debate will be a vain expression. Not only can the House of Commons not pass this charge by, but I respectfully submit that it is the duty of the House to take the severest notice of it. That being so, I submit to the House a Resolution upon the subject.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the Letter in the 'Star' newspaper of this evening's date, entitled 'Mr. Conybeare and the Speaker,' and signed by the honourable Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall, is a gross libel upon the Speaker of the House of Commons, and deserves the severest condemnation of the House."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
  MR. BIGGAR: I think that the House is under very great obligation to the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The usual course under the circumstances is for the hon. Member who is charged to make any statement he wishes to make, and then to withdraw. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall wishes to say anything he is entitled to speak now. Has the hon. Member anything to say?
  MR. CONYBEARE: I have only one thing to say, and that is that, in my opinion, with regard to what happened last night with reference to the noble Lord's own Bill, it would have been more decent if he had left this matter to be brought up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin).
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman will withdraw from the House pending the discussion.
  MR. CONYBEAREthereupon withdrew.
  MR. BIGGAR: I think that the House is under a very great obligation to the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, first of all, for the very neat sermon he has preached to us on the question of truthfulness and good manners. I also think that we are under a great obligation to the noble Lord for drawing the attention of the House and of the country to the proceedings which occurred last night. I beg to say that, so far as my opinion goes, the vote which will be taken on this question will not

  57
  really decide it, but that the country outside must give a final judgment on a question of this sort. I remember very well that a discussion took place with regard to the New Rules of Procedure, when it was constantly impressed upon the House that the discretion ought not to be left to Mr. Speaker as to whether or not he should put the Question that the closure should come into operation. But the Government of the day insisted that the discretion should be left to Mr. Speaker, and that Mr. Speaker should decide whether a question had been fully debated or not. The noble Lord, in the Resolution which he has placed before us, has stated that the Speaker has been libelled. Now I think, and I state candidly, that in my opinion the Speaker has not been libelled. I do not mean to use any strong language, but I contend that the question on which the closure was carried on the previous night had not been properly debated; and I say more, that if Mr. Speaker had fully carried out the terms of the Resolution which gave him power to put the closure he would have refused to put the Motion to the House. We have not, perhaps, technically speaking, so high an authority as the Speaker; but the Chairman of Committees, who is looked upon as an exceedingly able and efficient Chairman of Ways and Means, has repeatedly refused to put Motions in favour of the closure when, in his opinion, the question has not been properly debated. I think that one or two things must be done in the future—either the Speaker must use his judgment as to whether or not a question has been properly debated before putting the closure, or else the Rule now in existence must be changed.
  MR. SPEAKER: I think, perhaps, under the circumstances, the House will expect me to say a few words. I am sure I wish to speak without any heat, and I do not wish to import any kind of passion into the controversy which has arisen. The circumstances are these. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Camborne Division rose, I think, at about 20 or 25 minutes to 12 o'clock—[An hon. MEMBER: Twenty minutes.]—to move an Amendment on the Bann Drainage Bill. About five minutes to 12 o'clock an hon. Gentleman representing an Irish constituency on the Opposition side of the House (Mr.
  58
  Macartney) rose to move the closure. [Mr. BIGGAR: No, no! and cries of "Order!"] I refused to put that Motion, because I was aware that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Camborne Division had not moved his Amendment, and that there remained five or six minutes at least before 12 o'clock in which he might move it. Twelve o'clock came, and, in accordance with the Rules of the House for the ordinary conduct of Business, the closure was moved. I accepted that Motion. I am not bound to state the reason, but I think it due to the House to do so. The reason I accepted it was that I understood that no Irish Member wished to speak nor had any objection to the Bill, but that if they had any objection full opportunity would be given on a subsequent stage to raise any objection they might like to the first Bill—namely, the Bann Drainage Bill. Subsequently, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Camborne Division, alluding to what had taken place, and by implication, I presume, referring to my conduct, said that a gross public scandal had been the result. I said, considering the closure was the act of the House, and the House had passed the closure by a very large majority indeed, that that was a very improper expression for the hon. Gentleman to use, and that I must ask him to withdraw it. The hon. Member did not seem disposed to withdraw; and under the impression, which was confirmed by many hon. Members subsequently, that he did not withdraw, I named him to the House. Immediately after I did so, the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), among others, rose and said that the hon. Member for the Camborne Division intended to withdraw. I said, if that were so, I should most certainly take the word of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division without the slightest hesitation, and if he withdrew the expression the incident, so far as I was concerned, was at an end. Since I came down to the House the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington has shown me a letter and an article written in a paper which I have never seen, and about which I know nothing, and to the comments in which I am absolutely indifferent. I have nothing more to say. I thought I would give to the House a plain statement of exactly what passed, and I think I have

  59
  done so without the least colouring. Of course, as to the matter now before the House, I have nothing to say. I leave it to the judgment of the whole House.
  MR. LEA: I wish to be permitted to confirm the statement you have made, sir, that the closure was moved on this side of the House. I got up at two minutes to 12 o'clock, and moved that the Question be now put; but you, Sir, refused to put it on that occasion; and, consequently, I waited until another hon. Member, whom I was not aware was about to make the Motion, moved it at the end of the proceedings. It has been stated that the Motion was made at the instigation of the Government; I am able to say that no intimation was conveyed to me by any Member of the Government, or by anybody sitting on that side of the House. All I did was to intimate to an hon. Gentleman who sits on this side of the House that I intended to move the closure. I do not suppose I should be allowed to go into the merits of the Bill then under discussion; but when I know that the poor suffering tenant farmers in my constituency—[Cries of "Order!"]—when I saw the Bill being talked out of the House, as it was last night, and remembered the suffering tenants, it was enough to make their Representatives boil over with rage.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I only wish to say a word in reference to the statement which has been made that no Irish Member wished to discuss the Bill. I was sitting next to the hon. Member for the Camborne Division last night, when the hon. Member rose to object to the second reading of the Bill. I myself intended to make a speech upon the Bill, but the reason why the hon. Member rose was because upon a previous stage of the Bill he had given Notice that he had some particular objections which he intended to urge on the second reading. That is, I believe, the reason why the hon. Member rose before any Irish Member. I can assure the House that it was my intention—and I believe it was also that of other Irish Members—to speak on the Bill. It had only been debated for 20 minutes, as you, Sir, have pointed out, when the closure was moved by an hon. Member representing
  60
  a constituency in the North of Ireland, and before any Irish Member had an opportunity of expressing his opinion on the Bill, one way or the other. After a debate which lasted only 20 minutes, and before a single Irish Member had had an opportunity of speaking, the closure was put from the Chair and carried. That is all I have to say upon the matter. I only rose for the purpose of saying that if the closure had not been accepted Irish Members would have spoken, and a great many of them were disappointed because no opportunity was afforded to them when they found that the debate was so summarily stopped.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I venture respectfully to put it to the House that we are not now entering upon the consideration of the circumstances under which the closure was put last night, nor upon the consideration of the circumstances under which you, Sir, exercise the discretion vested in the Chair. If any hon. Member of the House is of opinion that you are failing in the discretion which you ought to exercise, there is a method by which the House can express an opinion upon the exercise of that discretion. What we are now called upon to do is to decide whether or not the hon. Member for the Camborne Division has grossly libelled you, Sir, in the Chair, and has offered in your person an insult to the House. I venture humbly to say that no matter what may be the opposition in this House, or what may be the Party feeling, or whatever the differences that may exist between us, we must preserve with the greatest possible jealousy and care the character, position, and independence of the Speaker. I have no desire to press hardly upon any Member of this House. I should desire to avoid everything like exaggeration or excess of language in a matter of this kind; but I venture humbly to represent to the House that no graver offence can be committed against the House than to say that the Speaker of this House has been guilty of an act which amounts to a public scandal—that he has backed up by his influence, and by the exercise of his discretion, the action of the Government, or of any Party in this House, and that when an hon. Member has deliberately withdrawn an un-Par-

  61
  liamentary expression that it does not do away with the effect produced by it; nor does it imply an alteration of a de liberately expressed opinion; it remains on record. I certainly think there are very few Members indeed who would not be prepared to repudiate in the very strongest terms such expressions as those. I submit it would be impossible for any deliberative Assembly to conduct its proceedings with any claim to the respect of those whom they represent if a Member is permitted to with draw an expression at one moment, and then to put on record that that with drawal was simply intended to avoid the immediate results of using the expression in the first instance, and that it remains on record as against the high officer of the House, whom he had deliberately insulted, and whose authority he had despised. We must assert the independence of the Speaker in the Chair; we must maintain the ordinary decencies and Rules for the conduct of debate in this House; and it is on that account that I support the Resolution which has been moved by my noble Friend the Member for South Paddington.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I may respect fully remind the House that there is no occasion upon which we are more likely to be ourselves judged, and even judged severely, by the public out-of-doors than when we are under the impression that we are exclusively engaged in judging other people—that is to say, in judging one of our own Members. We have before us a Resolution judging one of our own number; and, as the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington has referred to me as having seen much of this House, I shall endeavour to state my own views in strict accordance with the Rule that you, Sir, have wisely laid down in your observations from the Chair. I shall endeavour to avoid all epithets of colour, for on an occasion of this kind declamation, rhetoric, and invective are wholly out of place, have no connection with the subject-matter, and can only tend to obscure and blind the judgment of the House in the per formance of a difficult duty. Sir, I am under the impression that the course of proceeding now taken is not quite the most usual or the most convenient. I may be wrong; but I mean to say that
  62
  the question has come upon me, as it has come upon us all, by surprise, and it has been impossible to make those references in a moment which are absolutely necessary in order to justify confidence in assertions as to the proceedings and usages of this House. My impression is that the usual and, I think, the most convenient course in questions of this kind, which in their first aspects are Breaches of Privilege, has been to move a Motion to the effect that such and such words or proceedings are a Breach of the Privileges of this House. I think there is a great convenience in that method of proceeding. It presents the case in the way least connected with any consequences to follow, or with any kind of heat. I think our practice has been, when we have thought that a Breach of Privilege has been committed, to hear the Member upon the subject, and then, having before us his entire conduct, before any question of a penal character has been introduced, and having heard what the Member has to say, to proceed to deal further with the subject, and to award whatever punishment or reproof the House chooses, or to take whatever course, on the whole, it may think best. I venture, provisionally and respectfully, to make this suggestion as to the course that I think is most convenient, and which I believe has been the usual course in proceedings of this painful character. I now come to the substance of the question, which is entirely new to me—entirely new as regards the proceedings of last night, and new as regards the letter in The Star of to-day. But the letter which has appeared in The Star raises, in my opinion, a simple issue. I perceived with satisfaction that the right hon. Gentleman who has just stated that it is his intention to support this Motion has done so without temper, and in terms of an entirely judicial character; and I should strongly deprecate any deviation from a judicial tone on an occasion of this kind. I find, Sir, that as to the substance of the letter, it complains of a proceeding of the Speaker in administering that Rule of Closure upon which we had so much debate last year, and about which my Friends and I made so many disagreeable predictions. This is a complaint in regard to the action of the Speaker. I take it to be quite indis-

  63
  putable that when an hon. Member is of opinion that the Speaker has erred in judgment, either in administering the Rule of Closure, or in any other part of his duty, it is in the power of the hon. Member, subject to very grave considerations of high Parliamentary prudence and expediency, if he thinks that the magnitude of the subject demands it, to call in question the conduct of the Speaker in a regular and formal manner. That I believe to be the absolutely established principle. The Speaker in the Chair wields enormous powers, but the whole of those powers are provisional, inasmuch as there is not one of them that cannot, either in a general or particular case, be brought under the review and judgment of the House. I agree that on an occasion of this kind the question is not where an hon. Member sits. The question now before the House is not whether the hon. Member is a Member of the Party termed the Radical Party, or the Party termed the Nationalist Party, or any other Party; all these matters have nothing to do with it, and I endeavour to look at it without reference to them. I shall endeavour to look at it, as I am positively bound to do, in cold blood, just as the question is presented to me. I admit that there is a Parliamentary and legitimate method, although a grave one—but I hope the time may never come when it shall be necessary to resort to it—by which the conduct of the Speaker may be called in question. We have, in the first place, every opportunity of appealing to you, Sir; and we have, in the second place, should the necessity arise, the power of appealing from you. While preferring those methods of procedure, and while we are bound, I think, by the highest obligations to confine ourselves to those sufficient and proper means of Parliamentary action, believing that the language of this Resolution might have been more chastened, although the form that has been given to it may not be the most expedient and convenient, and although differences of opinion may prevail as to the step to be immediately taken, yet I cannot, and I do not, deny that expressions of this kind used with respect to the Speaker in a public journal, or in any other way, are distinctly Breaches of the Privileges of this House, aimed at the dignity and the security of its proceedings; and although I am deeply
  64
  grieved that a question affecting the dignity of the House should have arisen on an occasion when so many matters of the greatest public importance are before it, and when, as has been said by an hon. Member, it may be that a vote of this House will not bring an early close and settlement of the question—although I think there were many special considerations that might have suggested, and wisely suggested, a greater moderation in the proceedings of the House, yet, having this Motion before me, I cannot deny—on the contrary, I am bound to admit, and even assert—that these methods of proceeding with a view to censure the Chair are wholly incompatible with the Law and Practice of Parliament, and with the public interest; and, therefore, however reluctantly, I am compelled in the main to give my assent to a proposal the necessity for which I lament, and I must say some of the circumstances and incidents of which I very deeply deplore. I trust I may be allowd to finish as I began. I must say a word with reference to what fell from my hon. Friend behind me, that the proposal of the closure was made from this side of the House. I wonder from what side he means. I am obliged to make a slight protest against the assumption involved in the hon. Gentleman's speech that the sentiments of Gentlemen on this side of the House are generally to be inferred from a suggestion to which he had given the great weight of his personal authority. Passing from that subject, while I should be extremely glad if even now the form of procedure were altered, and we were called upon, in the first instance, to assert the Breach of Privilege, and then, by an ulterior step, to consider what measures we ought to take upon it—while I think it right very distinctly to assert that preference, yet I know that in a state of feeling such as prevails on these occasions to make substantive proposals for the purpose of giving effect to that view, and especially to make them from the particular position in the House in which I stand, might be, in all the circumstances, injurious. I, therefore, abandon the idea of moving against the Motion that has been now made. But I would respectfully suggest that a great improvement in the whole proceeding might be made if that method of action were adopted. If it be not, I cannot deny the main substance of the allegation that is

  65
  made, and I shall reluctantly assent to the assertion which the House is called upon to make.
  MR. SPEAKER: I should certainly regard it as a double proposition—first, that the letter which is before the House did constitute a libel; and, secondly, what the punishment shall be.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I really think that has been the usual practice, and it might be convenient, at any rate, to include in the proposition an assertion of the Privileges of the House.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: With respect to the point of Order raised by the right hon. Gentleman, would it not be a view of the subject which might be legitimately held that Breaches of Privilege and Motions as to Breaches of Privileges apply more usually to action taken by some person or persons not connected with the House than to the conduct of its own Members? And that is why I deliberately refrained from putting it down as a matter of Breach of Privilege, seeing that the libel uttered by the hon. Member for the Camborne Division, if it be a libel, was uttered by a Member of the House of Commons, and therefore differs from Breaches of Privilege properly so called.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: On the point of Order I should like, Sir, to ask whether in the Journals of the House there are not repeated records of matters by Members declared to be Breaches of Privilege, and whether the punitive action on these has been by separate Resolutions?
  MR. SPEAKER: Holding the view just stated by the hon. Gentleman, I propose to regard this proposition as two distinct propositions, and to put to the House, first, that the letter in The Star is a gross libel upon the Speaker of the House of Commons, and deserves the severest condemnation of the House.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I think that many of us would assent to that proposition if, instead of the words "gross libel," the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) would substitute "Breach of Privilege" [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No, no!] Many of us were not here last night, but read what occurred in the newspapers. We may, or may not, in our own hearts have an opinion whether you, Sir, in fulfilling those high functions which you fulfil so ably were
  66
  right in this particular instance. It is quite a different thing to entertain a personal opinion and to give expression to it. It would be far better if the noble Lord would agree to accept the words "Breach of Privilege," because that would be passed almost nemine contradicente. The noble Lord would then go on afterwards to move the second portion of the Resolution, which clearly raises the point whether it is such a Breach of Privilege as renders the person guilty of it liable to this very heavy penalty. I do not stand up here to defend, in its entirety, the conduct of my hon. Friend. I can perfectly understand that many hon. Members disapprove my hon. Friend's taste in raising this protest in The Star. But the noble Lord will, I think, see himself that there was a considerable vein of exaggeration in the expressions which he used, culminating in the proposal he has submitted to the House that the hon. Member should be expelled for the rest of the Session. If you, Sir, had named the hon. Member, he could only have been suspended for a week, for a second offence he would have been suspended for a fortnight, and for a third offence he would have been suspended for a month, and yet the noble Lord asks now that my hon. Friend should be suspended for the rest of the Session. In the same number of The Star there is an article by the editor couched in precisely as strong, if not stronger, terms than the letter. I think that many hon. Gentlemen do not know that, being Members of this House, they are not entitled to write in the newspapers upon your action, Sir, in precisely the same terms as if they were not Members of the House. I can, therefore, conceive that my hon. Friend was not aware that he was guilty of a Broach of Privilege. The gravamen of the charge is contained in this passage of the letter—
  "(1.) The withdrawal of an un-Parliamentary expression does not do away with the effect produced by using it. Nor does it imply any alteration of a deliberately expressed opinion. It remains on record."
  My hon. Friend has just sent me a letter in which he says that he has been considering the matter, and that, so far as Paragraph No. 1 is concerned, as it was open to a construction not, at the time he wrote it, intended by him, and sug-

  67
  gested that he was ready to depart from his word, he withdraws it, and regrets the expression. [Laughter.] Generally, that is an expression of regret, and a withdrawal on the part of the hon. Member is not generally received with laughter in this House. The hon. Gentleman does regret that he used this expression, and he withdraws it. I would, therefore, ask the noble Lord whether, in view of the letter I have just read, and remembering how distasteful these proceedings are, he will not be content with the House declaring that this is a Breach of Privilege? Does the noble Lord agree to that? [Cries of "No, no!"] The noble Lord does not say so.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: The matter is no longer in my hands, but in those of the House; but I do not concur in the hon. Member's views.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Then I presume that I am in Order in moving that, in lieu of the words "a gross libel on the Speaker and the House of Commons," there should be inserted, "a Breach of the Privileges of this House." I, therefore, move these words.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must leave out more words than those. The Question is, that the words "a gross libel on Mr. Speaker and the House of Commons," be left out, in order to insert the words "breach of the Privileges of this House."
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "libel upon the Speaker of the House of Commons," and insert the words "Breach of Privilege."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I do not understand that my hon. Friend intended, Sir, to use words personally disrespectful to you. [Cries of "Oh!"] You were acting as the exponent of the views of the House, and I take it that it is rather a libel upon the House. I look upon it more as an expression of opinion in regard to the House than upon you.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I do not wonder that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) shrinks from defending the conduct of the hon. Member for the Cam-
  68
  borne Division, nor do I think that the letter which the hon. Member has just sent into the House of Commons improves his position. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian pointed out that the usual course on occasions of this kind was for the Member inculpated to rise in his place and make a statement. The hon. Member for the Camborne Division had that opportunity, and the only opinion he expressed was that, on the whole, he was of opinion that the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington would have done much bettor if he had left this matter to be moved by myself. Why he made that statement I cannot conceive. I was not in the House yesterday; and I knew nothing about the letter in The Star until I came down to the House, and why or wherefore he should think it incumbent on me to have taken this course I am at a loss to conceive. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I warmly and cordially endorse the speech and action of the noble Lord upon this occasion. We have heard something from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian as to the advantage of an entire absence of invective on an occasion of this sort; and I am bound to say that I did not hear a word from my noble Friend which was at all stronger than the circumstances demanded, and I believe I express the general opinion of the House of Commons when I say, that for the action of the noble Lord on this occasion, which expresses the determination of the House as a whole to uphold the dignity and authority of the Chair, he is entitled to the thanks of the House and of all classes of people outside who value the honour of the House.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): I only wish to say that as Irish Members can obtain no redress in this House for slanders uttered in it, or for libels written outside, I do not concern myself in the matter of the present Motion, but I will leave you to settle your disputes between you.
  MR. HUNTER: I must express my determination to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington declares this letter of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division to be a gross

  69
  libel, with various other adjectives I did not quite catch. The noble Lord is very fond of adjectives, and he piled Pelion upon Ossa, and Olympus upon both, though he did not say in what sense the letter is to be called a libel. Is the letter to be called a libel in the sense that it is untrue? If that were the question before the House I should not be prepared to say that it is a libel at all. It was due to the hon. Member for the Camborne Division, with whose language I do not at all agree, for I think it is worthy of the strongest condemnation, to keep in mind the extraordinary provocation he received. It was the first time in this House that 20 minutes were considered sufficient for the second reading of a Bill. One unfinished speech was not, in my opinion, an adequate discussion of the measure. If the hon. Member for the Camborne Division had kept himself within the limits of Parliamentary usage it would scarcely have been possible for him to use language too strong in reference to these proceedings. Therefore, I entirely dissent from the punishment which the noble Lord proposes, and which is monstrously excessive and vindictive. The infliction of such a punishment will not redound to the credit of this House. I would remind the House that people out of doors do not pay so much attention as hon. Members do to the niceties of language. They look more to the substance of the transaction, and I greatly fear that the punishment proposed by the noble Lord will do great harm by giving in the country to the hon. Member for the Camborne Division an importance to which upon his own merits he would never attain.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I should have thought that the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) would have been the last man in this House to take the responsibility of the Motion now under consideration. Some hon. Members here who were acquainted with the noble Lord in his happier, and perhaps better, days when he did not occupy his present position, know that he did not hesitate to attack the Chairman of Committees who did not happen to belong to his own political Party. With regard to myself, I am responsible for what I do in this House, but for what I may do outside I invite
  70
  my opponents to a Court of Law. I should have thought that the noble Lord, who is not devoid of generosity of character, would have withdrawn or modified his proposal. The Speaker has explained that he agreed to the closure last night because his impression was that no Irish Members desired to speak. Therefore, I may assume that the closure was misapplied, inasmuch as it is now known that several Irish Members did desire to speak. I had not the advantage of being present during the debate, but I am assured that 10 or 12 Irish Members were prepared to speak upon the question. [Cries of "No, no!"] I know that to express a doubt as to the veracity of an Irish Member is not considered even a breach of good manners. In spite of this interruption from the gentlemanly Party, I reiterate the statement that several Irish Members desired to take part in the debate. If I had been present I myself should have desired to take part in it; and I should have joined the hon. Member for the Camborne Division in strong and persistent hostility to the Bill. Then having regard to the fact that several Irish Members desired to speak on the Bill and your statement, Sir, that if you had known that any Irish Member desired to speak, you would not have allowed the closure to be put, the matter comes to this—that the closure was applied under a misapprehension. We are, therefore, entitled to complain of the Motion of the noble Lord, backed up as it was by a speech, the tone and temper of which were not suited to the gravity of the question we are discussing. The hon. Member for the Camborne Division wrote this letter under circumstances which ought to be an excuse for his action. I was glad, Sir, to hear from you that you did not regard the expressions used by the hon. Member as applying to you personally. Under the circumstances, I think the hon. Member has a right to complain of the Motion of the noble Lord. We, on this side of the House are proved to have been more than justified by this debate in taking up a hostile attitude against the Rule when it was under discussion last year. We pointed out that it would operate unfairly against you, Sir, and your Successors in the Chair; that as the act would be the act of the majority of the House it would be improper to en-

  71
  tangle your personal character or official conduct in the debates of this House. I was, therefore, glad to hear, Sir, that you did not put the matter on any personal ground at all. We are now discussing, not the Speaker's ruling last night, but the words applied by the hon. Member for the Camborne Division to the act of the majority of the House. That being so, I shall be free to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton. I shall only vote for it, however, because I deem it the lesser evil of the two, for I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that the letter was a Breach of the Privileges of that House.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I think it tolerably clear that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian is right when he says we should be acting more in accordance with precedent in cases of Privilege by first of all affirming that the letter of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division (Mr. Convbeare) is a gross Breach of the Privileges of this House. The precedent nearest to the mark is the case of Mr. O'Connell on Feb. 26, 1838. Complaint was made of certain expressions in a speech of Mr. O'Connell at a public meeting as containing a charge of foul perjury against Members of this House in the discharge of their judicial duties on Election Committees. Mr. O'Connell was heard in his place, and averred that he had used the expressions complained of. He was first of all declared guilty of Breach of Privilege, and then by order of the House he was reprimanded in his place by the Speaker. That seems to be a precedent entirely in point. Most of us on this side of the House are, and certainly I myself am, inclined to vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Hear, hear!] I have great doubt as to the words "gross Breach of Privilege." Last year when the hon. Member for the Camborne Division made a speech, or wrote a letter, in which some reflection was cast upon your conduct in the Chair, I thought it was my duty to assure you of my perfect conviction, and of the conviction of all of us, that it was your constant desire to be fair and impartial in presiding over this House. I should not, therefore, be suspected, in supporting the Amendment, of any desire to extenuate the gravity of the offence of which the hon.
  72
  Member for the Camborne Division has been guilty in writing this letter. Enough has been said as to the offensive details of that letter, but we must view it as you, Sir, have invited us to view it, as a Breach of the Privileges of this House rather than as a mere personal attack upon yourself which you would be able to disregard. [Cries of "No, no!"] That, at least, is my view. What the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has just said is most true, that this extremely painful incident is due to the disregard of the predictions which we made last year as to the almost inevitable effect of this Rule in bringing the Chair into collision with Members of the House. What we then said of the Rule is amply justified. I only want to say further, that I am glad we can dissociate the declaration that this letter is a gross Breach of the Privileges of this House from any view as to what took place last night, for I should be very sorry to give any vote which would imply that the stoppage of the Debate last night was anything but a very gross abuse of the Rules. On that question it is not my business now to enter. I have informed the House what I think of the events of last night, and I have stated with equal frankness my opinion of the letter of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division. I shall vote, therefore for the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere), reserving to myself the right of voting whichever way I may think best on any subsequent Resolution that may be moved.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, I have listened with attention to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley). He has referred, unfortunately, as I think, to the incidents which preceded the offence of which the House is now taking cognizance. I say deliberately that we have nothing whatever to do with those incidents. What we have to deal with is that which I venture to say the whole House must realize, and which the right hon. Gentleman himself did not deny, to be a libel upon the character and conduct of the Speaker of the House. It is because I believe it is a libel upon the conduct of the Speaker that I cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have lost sight

  73
  of the fact that partiality is attributed to the Speaker in this statement, and that an object and purpose are attributed to him in the action which he took, and that he is warned that the constituency which he represents in this House will have its eyes upon him with regard to his conduct, and that the letter winds up with an ostentatious statement—I regret to be obliged to use that observation—that the withdrawal was effected for the purpose for which it was necessary, but that it was insincere and unreal, and that the words remained on record. The observations which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) are those which fairly and properly represent the almost unanimous feeling of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of this House. We must regard this as a serious Breach of the Privileges and a serious libel against the House, against the Speaker, and against the order and discipline of the House. It is on that account, and not because we have any desire to press hardly on the hon. Member, and because I feel that the good order of the House and the conduct of hon. Members in relation to you, Sir, and in relation to the House, are dear and necessary for the maintenance of the Privileges of this House, that I shall vote for the original Motion of my noble Friend the Member for South Paddington and against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Sir, I do not want to stand for more than a minute between this House and a Division; but I should like to point out that the part of the letter to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred supplies a conclusive reason against accepting the Motion of the noble Lord as against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton. The right hon. Gentleman said that the most serious part of the letter, and I agree with him, was that which contained the ostentatious statement that the withdrawal by the hon. Member for the Camborne Division was an insincere withdrawal. The hon. Member declares that—
  "The withdrawal of an un-Parliamentary expression does not do away with the effect produced by using it, nor does it imply any alteration of a deliberate expressed opinion, but it remains on record."
  74
  And he says that while his tongue was sworn his mind remained unsworn. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that these are condemnable words, and I ask you, Sir, whether they are a libel upon you. It is ridiculous to say so, and, from that point of view, the Motion of the noble Lord is utterly inadequate to meet this case. It is not wide enough, and it is because the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton is more adequate that I shall vote with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle against the Motion of the noble Lord.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Sir, I intend to support my hon. Colleague in the Amendment he has moved. I know of no more difficult position in which this House is placed than when it is judging a Member for his conduct, and I know how little the House exercises the judicial faculty when it is delivering any such judgment. I should not like to give a silent vote on this question, for I should not like to imply by my silence that I would be any party, directly or indirectly, to the implication of unfairness on the Chair made in the version of this letter. I vote for its condemnation as a gross Breach of the Privileges of the House, because that is a course which has been pursued in similar cases. I regret that the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, in his position as public prosecutor for the House, did not maintain the dignity which ought to characterize the position he assumes, but thought fit to jest at the hon. Member for the Camborne Division. Surely it was no matter for jesting at any rate. The noble Lord who jested with it seemed to him to lose his sense of the gravity of the charges he was making when he turned aside into that jocular mode of expression. I regard the words spoken here or elsewhere as things which should be adhered to always, and I think that the letter which has been read to the House from the Table is open to the severest condemnation if from that point of view alone. I shall support my Colleague in the Amendment he has moved, desiring to remind the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) that when the debate on the Closure Rule was taking place, I pointed out, as Hansard will show, that within a brief space we should be discussing

  75
  the fairness or unfairness of the Speaker or Chairman of Committees, and that that would be degrading the authority of the Chair, lessening its influence and laying it open to outside popular verdict, as well as to the kind of thing which we have unfortunately before us to-day. I said then, and I think now, that the closure is a weapon which every Chamber should have at hand, but that it should exercise it on its own responsibility and not shift on to its chief magistrate the odium which the majority is afraid to face.
  MR. PICTON: Sir; I cannot give a silent vote on this question, because there is something which I think has not yet been said, and I think it is my duty to say it very briefly. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) has told us, as only he can, under what extraordinary circumstances and under what solemn forms alone we should be justified in calling in question the conduct of the Chair; but I contend that in refusing the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton, the Leader of the House is really insisting upon bringing the conduct of the Chair in question. We are dealing, as I take it, with the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall, and not with the conduct of the Chair in the least degree. We, on this side of the House, do not think occasion has yet arisen for calling in question the conduct of the Chair. We bow in respect to it, we accept the decision of the Chair, and we decline to enter into any vote which would assume that the conduct of the Chair is to be called into question. If the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House persists in resisting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton, he insists on raising the question of the conduct of the Chair, and I, for one, shall vote with the hon. Member. I make an appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite on this ground that it is most desirable that the decision arrived at should be as unanimous as possible. We have heard speeches from all parts of the House, which show that all are ready to condemn the action and the letter of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division as a gross Breach of the Privileges of this House. Well, something will be gained if we come to an unanimous decision upon that point. As to anything
  76
  further it can be discussed afterwards, but for the honour of the House do let us be unanimous in our decision.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: Sir, I claim the privilege of saying a few words on this question. I wish to express to the noble Lord my deep sense of the obligation under which I lie to him for having brought this question before the House. We cannot continue under the Closure Rule without some modification of it, and I wish, Mr. Speaker, with due deference to your ruling, to explain to the House why I rise to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton. The other night the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department on a similar occasion deliberately charged me with inciting to riot, and holding an unlawful assembly, and the closure was put on. [Cries of "Order!"]
  DR. TANNER: Sir, I wish to explain why I shall not vote in this Division at all. In the first place, hon. Members who were here last night must be aware of the fact that considerable heat was shown at or about the time when the question was put. As a Member of this House, who does not possess the best temper, I may be allowed to say a word in favour of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare), who sat close by me. None of us were in a good temper, and I would ask the House to remember that a very short time must have elapsed between what occurred in the House and the writing of this letter. There is no doubt, as you have so ably shown the House to-night, that had you known that a number of us were going to speak on the Bill in question, the closure would not have been put. I would certainly ask the House to remember the feelings and state of mind of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division at that time. He thought himself seriously aggrieved, and certainly I, for one, thought he was extremely aggrieved. As a man, perhaps, subject to fits of temper, I would ask any Member, whether Liberal or Tory, to put himself in the place of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division at the time he wrote that letter; I would ask them not to go into the Lobby without having reflected upon the position in which the hon. Member was placed, and without paying

  77
  attention to the wise words which have fallen from the Chair in this matter. I cannot vote either for or against this Motion; and I would implore hon. Members who have not reflected on the circumstances either to follow my example, or else to consider, at any rate, that this offence is not so very flagrant, in consequence of the peculiar circumstances attending it.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I entirely agree with what has fallen from the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) as to the extreme desirability of the decision of the House being nearly, if not quite, unanimous. It appears to me that there is some risk that in the Division that is going to take place, some of us may be voting under a certain amount of misapprehension, or, at any rate, that we who take part in the Division shall not all of us be voting on exactly the same issue. I do not understand, from the observations which fell from my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), that he took any exception to the words of the Resolution that the letter which was read was a gross libel on Mr. Speaker; but I understand from some of the speeches which have been made below the Gangway that exception has been taken to those words. The position of my right hon. Friend was, that in this case it was desirable, if possible, to follow as strictly and nearly as may be precedent, and that in all similar cases the preliminary stage in proceedings of this kind had been to declare the proceedings in question to be a gross Breach of the Privileges of the House. I understand my right hon. Friend to say that the House ought to follow precedent, and that he commits himself to that declaration. I do not know whether it would be possible, in a subsequent Resolution, to introduce a declaration that the letter in question is a libel on the Speaker; but I gather, from what has fallen from my right hon. Friend, that he would not object to the use of those words if they could be inserted in a subsequent Resolution, and that the House should first proceed to assert that there has been a gross Breach of the Privileges.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it would be very convenient to the House that we should
  78
  have the opinion of the Government upon the suggestion just made by my noble Friend the Member for the Rossendale Division of Lancashire (the Marquess of Hartington). May I once more lay that suggestion before the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith)? As I understand there is practically an unanimous opinion in the House that the letter of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare) is a gross Breach of the Privileges of the House. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, practically the unanimous opinion. It appears to me that it would be most important for the dignity of the House, and for its future proceedings that we should have what would be practically an unanimous decision upon that point. Then, Sir, that having been established, it appears to me that it would be open to any hon. Member to propose, as a second Resolution, that inasmuch as the hon. Member for the Camborne Division has committed a gross Breach of the Privileges of this House, and has uttered a libel against the Speaker of the House, that a certain punishment should follow. I understand that if such a Resolution were put before the House as a second Resolution my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian would offer no opposition to it.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I wish to point out to the House that there is some mistake as to the precedents which might be applicable in this case. There is a precedent in the year 1858, where the assertion was not made in the first instance that it was a Breach of the Privileges of the House. The Resolution I am referring to began in these words—
  "Resolved, That the said article is a false and scandalous libel upon the Chairman and other Members of the Committee."
  And proceeded—
  "That Washington Willis, the proprietor and publisher of the said newspaper, in publishing the said article, has been guilty of a Breach of the Privileges of the House."—(3 Hansard, [150] 1068.)
  The House will observe that the declaration of libel preceded any other action.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I take the liberty of saying that in my state-

  79
  ment on this subject I referred only to the precedents of the last six years. I did not go back to the precedents in older times.
  MR. GOSCHEN: But this is a precedent of 1858.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: May I submit to the House two or three words to show as to why I hope that the majority of the House will support the original Resolution. Of course, it was my object in drawing this Motion to make it clear that the Speaker of the House had been cruelly libelled by the hon. Member for Camborne. This is what I wanted the House to assert—that the statements of the hon. Member were a gross libel. That is the point which I wish, if possible, to impress on the public mind. And I point out that the words suggested by the hon. Member opposite, "gross Breach of the Privileges of the House of Commons" are, to my mind, quite unnecessary, for there can be no greater Breach of the Privileges of the House of Commons than grossly and falsely to libel the Speaker.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: The precedent quoted by the right hon. Gentleman is not quite on all fours with the present case, because Mr. Washington Wilks was not a Member of the House.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the distinction makes the case all the stronger. It is because we desire to put the libel in the forefront, in order to mark the sense of the House on the question, that the Government have decided to support the Resolution of the noble Lord.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 245; Noes 168: Majority 77.

  AYES.

  Aird, J.

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

  Amherst, W. A. T.

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Beadel, W. J.

  Baden-Powell, Sir G. S.

  Beaumont, H. F.

  Beckett, E. W.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Beckett, W.

  Baird, J. G. A.

  Bentinck, rt. hon. G. C.

  Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

  Banes, Major G. E.

  Bentinck, W. G. C.

  Baring, Viscount

  Beresford, Lord C. W. De la Poer

  Baring, T. C.

  Bartley, G. C. T.

  Bethell, Commander G. R.

  Barttelot, Sir W. B.

  Bates, Sir E.

  Biddulph, M.

  Baumann, A. A.

  Birkbeck, Sir E.

  80

  Blundell, Colonel H. B. H.

  Fletcher, Sir H.

  Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

  Bolitho, T. B.

  Boord, T. W.

  Forwood, A. B.

  Borthwiek, Sir A.

  Fry, L.

  Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.

  Fulton, J. F.

  Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.

  Bristowe, T. L.

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

  Gathorne-Hardy, hon. J. S.

  Brookfield, A. M.

  Giles, A.

  Brown, A. H.

  Gilliat, J. S.

  Bruce, Lord H.

  Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.

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

  Gorst, Sir J. E.

  Caine, W. S.

  Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

  Campbell, Sir A.

  Gray, C. W.

  Campbell, J. A.

  Greene, E.

  Carmarthen, Marq. of

  Grimston, Viscount

  Cavendish, Lord E.

  Grotrian, F. B.

  Chaplin, right hon. H.

  Gunter, Colonel R.

  Charrington, S.

  Gurdon, R. T.

  Churchill, right hon. Lord R. H. S.

  Hall, A. W.

  Hall, C.

  Clarke, Sir E. G.

  Halsey, T. F.

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

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

  Coddington, W.

  Hanbury, R. W.

  Coghill, D. H.

  Hankey, F. A.

  Colomb, Sir J. C. R.

  Hardcastle, F.

  Corry, Sir J. P.

  Hartington, Marq. of

  Courtney, L. H.

  Heath, A. R.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-

  Crawford, D.

  Cross, H. S.

  Heneage, right hon. E.

  Cubitt, right hon. G.

  Herbert, hon. S.

  Curzon, Viscount

  Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

  Curzon, hon. G. N.

  Dalrymple, Sir C.

  Hill, Colonel E. S.

  Darling, C. J.

  Hoare, E. B.

  Davenport, H. T.

  Hoare, S.

  Dawnay, Colonel hon. L. P.

  Hornby, W. H.

  Houldsworth, Sir W.H.

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

  Howard, J.

  Dickson, Major A. G.

  Howorth, H. H.

  Dimsdale, Baron R.

  Hozier, J. H. C.

  Dixon, G.

  Hubbard, hon. E.

  Donkin, R. S.

  Hughes, Colonel E.

  Dorington, Sir J. E.

  Hulse, E. H.

  Dugdale, J. S.

  Hunt, F. S.

  Duncombe, A.

  Hunter, Sir G.

  Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W.H.

  Isaacs, L. H.

  Ebrington, Viscount

  Isaacson, F. W.

  Edwards-Moss, T. C.

  Jackson, W. L.

  Egerton, hon. A. J. F.

  James, rt. hon. Sir H.

  Egerton, hon. A. de T.

  Jeffreys, A, F.

  Elcho, Lord

  Jennings, L. J.

  Elliot, hon. H. F. H.

  Kelly, J. R.

  Elliot, G. W.

  Kennaway, Sir J. H.

  Ellis, Sir J. W.

  Kenrick, W.

  Elton, C. I.

  Kenyon, hon. G. T.

  Ewart, Sir W.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.

  Ewing, Sir A. O.

  Eyre, Colonel H.

  Kimber, H.

  Feilden, Lt.-Gen. R. J.

  Knatchbull-Hugessen, H. T.

  Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

  Knightley, Sir R.

  Field, Admiral E.

  Knowles, L.

  Finch, G. H.

  Lafone, A.

  Fisher, W. H.

  Lawrance, J. C.

  Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

  Lawrence, W. F.

  Fitz-Wygram, Gen. Sir F. W.

  Lea, T.

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  81

  Legh, T. W.

  Robertson, J. P. B.

  Leighton, S.

  Robinson, B.

  Lennox, Lord W. C. G.

  Ross, A. H.

  Round, J.

  Lethbridge, Sir R.

  Sandys, Lieut-Col. T. M.

  Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

  Sellar, A. C.

  Llewellyn, E. H.

  Selwyn, Capt. C. W.

  Long, W. H.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H.

  Lowther, rt. hon. J.

  Sidebotham, J. W.

  Lowther, hon. W.

  Sidebottom, T.

  Lowther, J. W.

  Sidebottom, W.

  Lubbock, Sir J.

  Sinclair, W. P.

  Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  Spencer, J. E.

  Mac Innes, M.

  Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

  Maclean, J. M.

  Stanley, E. J.

  Maclure, J. W.

  Stephens, H. C.

  Madden, D. H.

  Stewart, M. J.

  Mallock, R.

  Stokes, G. G.

  Marriott, rt. hon. Sir W. T.

  Swetenham, E.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Matthews, rt. hn. H.

  Tapling, T. K.

  Mattinson, M. W.

  Taylor, F.

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Temple, Sir R.

  Mildmay, F. B.

  Theobald, J.

  Mills, hon. C. W.

  Thorburn, W.

  More, R. J.

  Tomlinson, W. E. M.

  Mount, W. G.

  Trotter, Colonel H. J.

  Mowbray, R. G. C.

  Tyler, Sir H. W.

  Muntz, P. A.

  Vernon, hon. G. R.

  Murdoch, C. T.

  Vincent, C. E. H.

  Noble, W.

  Walsh, hon. A. H. J.

  Norris, E. S.

  Watkin, Sir E. W.

  Northcote, hon. Sir H. S.

  Webster, Sir R. E.

  Webster, R. G.

  O'Neill, hon. R. T.

  Wharton, J. L.

  Paget, Sir R. H.

  Whitley, E.

  Parker, hon. F.

  Whitmore, C. A.

  Pearce, Sir W.

  Winn, hon. R.

  Plowden, Sir W. C.

  Wodehouse, E. R.

  Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Plunkett, hon. J. W.

  Wood, N.

  Pomfret, W. P.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  Powell, F. S.

  Wright, H. S.

  Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

  Young, C. E. B.

  Rankin, J.

  Rasch, Major F. C.

  TELLERS.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Ritchie, rt. hon. C. T.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  NOES.

  Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)

  Carew, J. L.

  Causton, R. K.

  Acland, A. H. D.

  Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

  Allison, R. A.

  Channing, F. A.

  Asquith, H. H.

  Childers, right hon. H. C. E.

  Austin, J.

  Balfour, Sir G.

  Clancy, J. J.

  Barbour, W. B.

  Clark, Dr. G. B.

  Barran, J.

  Cobb, H. P.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Coleridge, hon. B.

  Bolton, J. C.

  Conway, M.

  Bradlaugh, C.

  Corbet, W. J.

  Bright, Jacob

  Cox, J. R.

  Broadhurst, H.

  Cozens-Hardy, H. H.

  Brown, A. L.

  Craig, J.

  Brunner, J. T.

  Crawford, W.

  Bryce, J.

  Crossley, E.

  Cameron, J. M.

  Deasy, J.

  Campbell, Sir G.

  Duff, R. W.

  Campbell-Bannerman, right hon.

  Ellis, J.

  Ellis, T. E.

  82

  Esslemont, P.

  Palmer, Sir C. M.

  Evans, F. H.

  Parker, C. S.

  Farquharson, Dr. R.

  Paulton, J. M.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro-

  Pease, A. E.

  Finucane, J.

  Philipps, J. W.

  Firth, J. F. B.

  Pickard, B.

  Fitzgerald, J. G.

  Pickersgill, E. H.

  Flower, C.

  Picton, J. A.

  Foljambe, C. G. S.

  Pinkerton, J.

  Forster, Sir C.

  Potter, T. B.

  Fowler, right hon. H. H.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  Power, P. J.

  Fry, T.

  Power, R.

  Fuller, G. P.

  Price, T. P.

  Gaskell, C. G. Milnes-

  Priestley, B.

  Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

  Pugh, D.

  Goldsmid, Sir J.

  Pyne, J. D.

  Gourley, E. T.

  Randell, D.

  Graham, R. C.

  Rathbone, W.

  Grove, Sir T. F.

  Redmond, W. H. K.

  Harris, M.

  Reid, R. T.

  Hayden, L. P.

  Richard, H.

  Hayne, C. Seale-

  Roberts, J.

  Howell, G.

  Roberts, J. B.

  Hoyle, I.

  Robertson, E.

  Hunter, W. A.

  Roe, T.

  Illingworth, A.

  Roscoe, Sir H. E.

  Jacoby, J. A.

  Rowlands, J.

  James, hon. W. H.

  Rowntree, J.

  Joicey, J.

  Russell, Sir C.

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

  Samuelson, G. B.

  Schwann, C. E.

  Kenny, C. S.

  Shaw, T.

  Kilbride, D.

  Sheehan, J. D.

  Lalor, R.

  Simon, Sir J.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Smith, S.

  Lawson, H. L. W.

  Spencer, hon. C. R.

  Leahy, J.

  Stanhope, hon. P. J.

  Leake, R.

  Stepney-Cowell, Sir A. K.

  Lefevre, rt. hn. G. J. S.

  Lockwood, F.

  Stevenson, F. S.

  Lyell, L.

  Stewart, H.

  Macdonald, W. A.

  Stuart, J.

  M'Arthur, W. A.

  Sullivan, D.

  M'Carthy, J.

  Summers, W.

  M'Donald, P.

  Sutherland, A.

  M'Donald, Dr. R.

  Sutherland, T.

  M'Ewan, W.

  Swinburne, Sir J.

  M'Lagan, P.

  Thomas, D. A.

  Maitland, W. F.

  Trevelyan, right hon. Sir G. O.

  Mappin, Sir F. T.

  Marjoribanks, rt. hon. E.

  Tuite, J.

  Wallace, R.

  Menzies, R. S.

  Warmington, C. M.

  Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.

  Watt, H.

  Morgan, O. V.

  Wayman, T.

  Morley, right hon. J.

  Will, J. S.

  Morley, A.

  Williams, J. Powell-

  Mundella, rt. hon. A. J.

  Williamson, S.

  Wilson, H. J.

  Neville, R.

  Wilson, I.

  Nolan, Colonel J. P.

  Winterbotham, A. B.

  Nolan, J.

  Woodall, W.

  O'Brien, P. J.

  Woodhead, J.

  O'Connor, A.

  Wright, C.

  O'Connor, J.

  O'Connor, T. P.

  TELLERS.

  O'Hanlon, T.

  Labouchere, H.

  O'Keeffe, F. A.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Main Question put,
  Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, the Letter in the "Star" newspaper of this

  83
  evening's date, entitled 'Mr. Conybeare and the Speaker,' and signed by the honourable Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall, is a gross libel upon the Speaker of the House of Commons, and deserves the severest condemnation of the House."
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Mr. Conybeare, Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall, be suspended from the Service of the House for the remainder of the Session."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Sir, I rise to move an Amendment, the object of which is, that instead of being suspended for the remainder of the Session, the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall be suspended for one week. The House has already expressed its opinion in the strongest terms with regard to the action of my hon. Friend the Member for the Camborne Division; but I am sure that the House, having done so, will feel that some generosity should be applied in considering the punishment which should be awarded to him. I would point out that we have a regulated scale of punishment for Parliamentary offences; so much for the first offence, so much for the second, the punishment for the third offence being suspension for one month. This is the first offence on the part of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Undoubtedly this is the first offence. Under these circumstances, I certainly think hon. Gentlemen opposite might be satisfied with the action they have already taken and assent to this alteration which I suggest. I would point out that it would come with a good grace from them, because my hon. Friend is accustomed to take a somewhat active part in the discussions on the Estimates. The Estimates are about to become the chief Business of the House during the rest of the Session. My hon. Friend does good work in calling attention to certain points in the Estimates, and we are anxious that he should be able to back what he believes to be the cause of economy and the cause of the country. I put it to hon. Gentlemen opposite that they should not only look at the matter in a generous light as Members of the House of Commons, but also that they should look at it generously as the political opponents of the hon. Member. By acceding to this request you will have prevented anything of this kind taking place at
  84
  a future time, and the punishment awarded to the hon. Gentleman would be sufficient.
  Amendment, to leave out the words "for the remainder of the Session," in order to insert the words "one week."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'for the remainder of the Session,' stand part of the Question."
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: Sir, I do not know whether the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) means that this punishment shall last to the end of the Autumn Session or to the adjournment of the Session. Now, I agree that the hon. Member for the Camborne Division has committed a serious offence; but I think that the punishment ought not to be too great, and I venture to say I think so especially because that hon. Member is somewhat unpopular. [Cries of "No, no!" and "Withdraw!"] I know he is unpopular with a large number of Members of the House. In my opinion, it is not desirable that the punishment should be in any way vindictive. I think it should be adequate to the offence; a week is not long enough; but suspension for the whole of the Session and the whole of the adjourned Session which we are about to hold is too long in my opinion, and I venture to ask the noble Lord whether he would not limit his Motion to the remainder of the Session? I think the constituents of the hon. Member would hardly appreciate so long a punishment as one which would extend to the end of the adjourned Session; and, therefore, with some confidence I beg to urge this plea for mercy on the noble Lord.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Sir, I agree with the substance of what has been stated by my hon. Friend who has just sat down—namely, that there is a difficulty as to the form of the Motion of the noble Lord. When that Motion was read I took it for granted that the noble Lord had, in his mind, the time which remained to the end of the Session, viewing it as an ordinary Session. This Session, I conjecture, will last for a month. Owing to the accident that we do not know yet—the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) has not been able to tell

  85
  us—whether there will be an Autumn Sitting or not. We do not know really whether this Motion means suspension for one month, or whether it means suspension for six months. We ought, I think, to know which of the two it means. It would be absurd to make the period of suspension dependent on what to us is at present unknown, and on what we may call relevant to this subject, a pure accident. I therefore, submit, that, in my opinion, to inflict a punishment for six months would be too severe, and that it would be better to substitute a moderate and definite term in order that the Resolution of the House may be carried out in the spirit suggested by my hon. Friend.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Sir, I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury is in a position to make any Statement with regard to the adjournment of the House until the autumn, nor do I think that any such statement would have the slightest connection with the matter now being discussed. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) has spoken about a moderate term of punishment. Certainly I do not think that the House should agree to any immoderate term of suspension; I should be sorry to be connected with the giving of such advice; but I would call to the notice of the House the main feature of the Motion—namely, that there has been a gross libel on the Speaker of the House of Commons which deserves the severest punishment. Now, Sir, I decline, under these circumstances, to concern myself with any refinements or speculations as to when the Session is to be terminated. I think it is perfectly reasonable that the House, having agreed to the Motion, should come to the conclusion that the hon. Member has incapacitated himself from taking any part in the service of the House during the present Session. If anyone has a right to complain it is not the hon. Member for the Camborne Division, it is the Mover of the Resolution. We have to confine ourselves to the character of the Chair and the authority of the Chair, and I cannot think that any less punishment than that assigned in the original proposal would be adequate to the offence of the hon. Member.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: Sir, we are all so taken by surprise by the events of to-day, and we have not our precedents near at hand, but in the recollection of many of us there is a very exact precedent, indeed, which I think we shall do well to follow in this matter. A gentleman whose conduct has been before the world in a very prominent manner in recent days—I am speaking from recollection, but I believe I am speaking correctly—very grossly insulted the Chairman of Committees when he was a Member of this House. The insult was an extremely gross one, and it was repeated and insisted upon. The then Leader of the House—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone)—was called upon by his position to take cognizance of this matter, and the punishment which he proposed, and which was accepted by the House, was a suspension for 14 days. I must say that I find it absolutely impossible to vote for a single day more on this occasion, because, while as regards the Breach of Privilege I consider that it is our duty as much as possible to be silent on the events of last evening, when it comes to the amount of punishment it is absolutely impossible to pass them over altogether. When the right hon. Gentleman, who leads the House, in his laudable anxiety to limit as much as possible an inconvenient debate, begged us not to refer to those events, I think he forgot, Sir, that you, from the Chair, had very distinctly laid before us an important and interesting description of what occurred. Now, in that description you referred to an hon. Gentleman who spoke from this side of the House—the hon. Member for South Londonderry (Mr. Lea)—and that hon. Member got up to explain his conduct, and told us why he moved the closure so early, and he said that the reason was that when the House was inclined to vote money for poor starving people in Ireland the question was not to be debated for five minutes.
  MR. LEA: What I said was, that when I saw a Bill being so talked out, a Bill which might save the products of a year's labour to the struggling tenants of my constituency, it was enough to make their Member boil with rage.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I accept at once the words of my hon. Friend, and I think they are very ominous. I absolutely repudiate the idea that the closure, moved with the intention of giving short discussion upon a question of money to be given to any rank of starving people in Ireland, is a legitimate reason for moving the closure in the manner which it has been used by the majority of the House. No one can more strongly condemn than I do very much that is in the letter of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division. It has, on the face of it, what we all condemn, and in some respects mild words cannot be used with regard to it; but the writing of a letter on the subject I do not greatly blame. The events of yesterday were very remarkable events indeed. I was absent—[Laughter]—that is the judicial temper in which this discussion is being carried on—I was absent, but my very absence is a proof of the very peculiar character of the proceedings of last night, because, interested as I was in the Bann Drainage Bill, I left the House at 25 minutes or so before 12, because it never even entered my imagination that a Bill of that importance could possibly have been brought on after that time. The hon. Member for the Camborne Division, professing to speak—and I believe sincerely speaking—for the ratepayers of this country, thought that he had been greatly wronged. I do not enter into the question whether he was greatly wronged or not—and what method had he of expressing that fact or bringing it before the House? He had, for practical purposes, absolutely none. How could he bring before this House the fact that, in his opinion, the closure had been improperly used? I think it is a very strong doctrine to lay down that under these circumstances, the hon. Member might not write a temperate and moderate letter to the newspapers, stating that, in his opinion, the majority of the House had applied the closure in an improper manner. But the hon. Gentleman wrote a letter to a newspaper which was not moderate, and I think that for having yielded to a temptation—for having written an intemperate and immoderate letter, and one which violated the privileges of this House—a punishment similar to that inflicted on Mr. O'Donnell would be sufficient.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Sir, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, and substitute another Amendment providing for the suspension of one fortnight. I do so because my right hon. Friend has just cited a particular precedent which I think should be followed in this case.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed; to leave out the words "the remainder of the Session," in order to insert the words "one fortnight."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: Sir, the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington has justly observed that this House has passed a strong Resolution condemning the hon. Member for the Camborne Division (Mr. Conybeare), and that, therefore, we should pass a severe punishment; but I should like to point out that if we accept the proposal of the noble Lord, we should be inflicting a punishment the amount of which we do not know, and the severity of which would have no reference to the conduct of the hon. Member. No one at present can say whether it would be a suspension of one month or six, because it depends entirely upon whether there will be an Autumn Sitting. I understand the noble Lord to mean that the suspension should last to the end of what is colloquially known as the present Session, but not to extend to an Autumn Sitting. If we were to vote for the Motion of the noble Lord, it seems to me that we should be placed in an awkward position, and I would, therefore, submit to the House that we should substitute some definite period, say one month, for the indefinite words employed in the noble Lord's Amendment.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Sir, my right hon. Friend has brought before us a case in which the House proceeded with a very just and grave deliberation, the advantages of which we do not now enjoy. I apprehend that I am safe in assuming that the authority of the Chairman of Commitees is surrounded by the same sanction as that of the Speaker in the Chair while he is engaged in discharging his very difficult office. For the convenience of the House, I may say that I am about to quote from Hansard. I find that on the 3rd of July, 1882, Mr. Speaker made a Report of

  89
  which I am now going to give an account—
  "Mr. Playfair then reported to Mr. Speaker that Mr. O'Donnell, the Member for Dungarvon, sitting in his place, had insulted the Chairman, saying that the action taken by him was"—not a public scandal but—"an infamy."—(3 Hansard, [271] 1274.)
  That was the offence.
  "Mr. Speaker thereupon addressed the House, and stated that it was his duty, in consequence of the Chairman's Report, to submit the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell to the judgment of the House."—(Ibid.)
  That was on the 3rd of July, and the Motion made upon it was—
  "That the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell be taken into consideration on Monday next."—(Ibid.)
  I cannot but express my deep regret that I had not a clearer recollection to place at the service of the House, when I last rose, of proceedings which I think would have been an admirable pattern for our conduct in this case. It was under these circumstances that the words used by Mr. O'Donnell, "an infamy," were dealt with, and I believe that the House thought that a suspension of 14 days was an adequate punishment for that offence. We are now invited by the noble Lord to impose a punishment which may mean suspension for six months.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Sir, I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman with reference to what he calls the precedent of Mr. O'Donnell, that in that case there was but one offence committed—a grave and heavy offence, as the right hon. Gentleman has rightly described it. In this case, there was not only the insult to the Speaker of the House of Commons, but the hon. Member for the Camborne Division wrote a letter to the Press, and in it practically withdrew his withdrawal of the charges which he had made. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian must feel the gravity of this withdrawal, because if an apology in the House is to count for nothing, it strikes me that a fresh blow has been delivered at the decorum of the proceedings of this House. The hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson) rightly characterized this as the gravest part possibly of the whole offence. That consideration did not enter into the deliberations in the case of Mr. O'Donnell. In the case of Mr.
  90
  O'Donnell there was an offence committed in the heat of the moment; in this case we have not only the action resulting from the heat of the moment, but we have this withdrawal, which I think constitutes a grave aggravation of the original offence, and if the former offence was punished with suspension for a fortnight, I do not think that the offence of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division would be adequately punished with the same term of suspension.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Sir, at the present moment this matter is in the decision of the House. If the House inflicts no longer punishment than is adequate, there is no appeal against the decision of the House; but there is a very effective appeal, if the House passes such a sentence as is now proposed, to the constituents of the hon. Member. A punishment of this nature falls not on the hon. Member alone but on his constituents, and if the punishment is to obtain for the whole of the Session, including the adjourned Session, his constituents may consider it too great. But suppose the hon. Member for the Camborne Division were, if the House suspended him for the whole Session, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the Chiltern Hundreds; would he venture to refuse it? If the right hon. Gentleman did, he would act contrary to precedent. I know an hon. Member who was prevented by Order of the House from sitting, but in a week his constituents cancelled the Order, and he presented himself at the Table again. I ask the House not to put itself in that position. I believe the judgment of the people outside will condemn, as this House has condemned, the letter of the hon. Gentleman; but I believe the country will revolt, and I think justly revolt, against a punishment which is in excess of anything which the House has inflicted for a similar offence—a punishment inflicted in the heat of the moment, without deliberation, and with no sort of generosity in the moving. Men who stand high and free from reproach, men who have never used obstruction in this House, who have always contributed to its Order, and who have never, with however clever innuendo, challenged the decision of the Chairman of Committees, have alone the right to take this high ground. The noble Lord the Member

  91
  for South Paddington should have been reticent of words of provocation in this House. I have listened to the noble Lord night after night, when he occupied a seat on this side, and I never dreamed at the time that he was contributing to the decorum of debate. Try to be generous if you cannot be just. I know it is exceedingly difficult for this House to be just, but I hope there are enough English Gentlemen in it to be generous. I have always, under all circumstances, shown the utmost respect for the Chair, even when I felt it my duty to come in collision with it, and having suffered the punishment which this House inflicts, I ask it not to give to the hon. Member for the Camborne Division the right to appeal to his constituents against a decision which I shall urge is harsh, if the Resolution of the noble Lord is passed. If the House errs at all, let it be on the side of mercy, remembering that it is the constituents who suffer, and not the hon. Member.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Sir, if the argument of the hon. Member opposite is good for anything at all it would be equally good against any punishment whatever. This is the third time on which the hon. Member for the Camborne Division has offended in this way. I think it was in the last Session or the Session before that the conduct of the hon. Member came under the review of the House, in consequence of language used with regard to Mr. Speaker; then there was the event of last night, which constituted the second stage; and the letter which appeared to-day is the third. The rule of our procedure is that at present that when a Member has offended three times, he is liable to suspension for the remainder of the Session. We cannot, therefore, think that the punishment which is now moved by the noble Lord is excessive. When we consider the character of the observations, and still more the character of the Resolution in which the House has just arrived, I, at any rate, am totally unable to conceive how any hon. Member of this House, or any man, can consider that the punishment proposed to be awarded is greater than is deserved.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Sir, in consequence of the observations of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), I wish, if I may be
  92
  allowed, to say that the only time when I thought it my duty to refer to the conduct of the Chair, was when the Chairman of Ways and Means consulted the Speaker as to the objection I had taken, and came back to inform the House that the objection was sound and that I was in Order.
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, I listened to what fell just now from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). He said that the offence which the House has declared that the hon. Member for the Camborne Division has committed, ought to be treated as a third offence and punished accordingly. That, Sir, is inconsistent with the Resolution we have passed. We have passed a definite Resolution with respect to a particular letter; and if the House is to go back to all the quarrels they have had with one hon. Member or another and treat them as a reason for additional punishment, I think we shall arrive at a very lamentable position. I trust, however, that the House will calmly address itself to the question as to what is a fair and reasonable punishment for the offence which the hon. Member for the Camborne Division has committed. Reference has been made to a case which is very much in point, and which I perfectly well remember, because it was my duty to move the resolution which led to the subsequent proceedings. I refer to the case of Mr. O'Donnell. I do not understand the distinction which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer drew between that and the present case, and, on the contrary, I think there was aggravation, if I may say so, in the case of Mr. O'Donnell, because he did not stand alone. The House was then dealing with several offenders at the same time; the House was under the influence of a very serious quarrel, and they treated Mr. O'Donnell more severely than the other hon. Members whose conduct at the same time came under their cognizance. The offence of Mr. O'Donnell was that he charged the Chairman with "infamy," and that I venture to say was a far more serious offence than that which the hon. Member for the Camborne Division is now stated to have committed. But my noble Friend the Member for the Rossendale

  93
  Division of Lancashire (the Marquess of Hartington) has made a powerful appeal to the House with reference to the first Resolution—I am not sure how he followed up that appeal—by asking whether, in a matter of this kind, it was not very desirable that the House should, if possible, be unanimous in the decision at which it arrived. Now, I would also put it to the House whether the punishment of 14 days' suspension is not one on which the House might be with justice unanimous, and whether the suspension proposed by the noble Lord has not all the elements of injustice to the constituents of the hon. Member as well as the hon. Member himself. We have not yet heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House—and I venture to appeal to him to make a distinct statement—as to what he considers to be the term of punishment that ought to be awarded in this case. If there are to be Autumn Sittings the suspension on the terms of the Motion of the noble Lord would last until near Christmas; if not, then the suspension would last for a month. The two periods are widely different, and the only Member who can advise the House in this matter is the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. Now, Sir, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to be a party to an uncertain punishment, which he knows is the very worst punishment. All modern ideas of punishment are concentrated on the one point that it should be precise and not vague, whereas the punishment proposed by the noble Lord is vague in the highest degree. We are prepared to accept the proposal of a fortnight's suspension, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept that as absolutely adequate to the offence of the hon. Member.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: Sir, I feel very strongly indeed the necessity of going on right lines in this matter, and not turning the sympathy of the country on the side of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division, and causing them to withhold the condemnation of the hon. Member's conduct which they will undoubtedly pass if we act rightly. I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend opposite that a fortnight's suspension would be sufficient; but I think the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone)
  94
  originally—namely, that the suspension should be for the definite period of one month, which will carry us through the remainder of this part of the Session, is one which will generally commend itself to the House; but I am bound to say that I could not vote for suspension for the remainder of the Session.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, I am not able to admit that the offence of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division is of less gravity than that of Mr. O'Donnell. Mr. O'Donnell was suspended for an act which he committed in the heat of the moment and in circumstances of great provocation. The offence of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division was deliberately committed after the original offence for which no proper apology had been made. There is an immense distinction between the two cases, and unless the House were to mark in a very signal way its resolve that it will insist on its Members maintaining those rules of conduct which are necessary for the dignity of its proceedings, there would no longer be any hope of their character being preserved. Upon the question of the measure of punishment, it appears to me that there is some reason in the observations of hon. Gentlemen who have complained that the proposal of my noble Friend is somewhat vague. I admit that in the present condition of the Business of the House there is a vagueness as to the duration of the Session, and I wish it were in my power to indicate as plainly as I know hon. Members are desirous that I should state, the time when the labours of the Session will come to an end; but I suggest that the object which my noble Friend seeks to attain will be secured if we substitute for the terms of his Motion a suspension of one month from the service of the House. That I think will mark the sense in which the House is prepared to regard a departure of this kind from its Rules.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has argued that there is a distinction between the case of Mr. O'Donnell and that of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division, on the ground that the one offence took place in the heat of the moment, and the other is a repeated offence. Now, I ask the attention of the House to the circumstances that the punishment in Mr.

  95
  O'Donnell's case was for an offence deliberately repeated. As may be read in Hansard, Mr. O'Donnell said—
  "With regard to my assertion, to my statement, to my solemn declaration—for I wish it to be understood that I made it in all solemnness and earnestness—that that statement which had been read to the House was an infamy. I mean that, and mean to include within that solemn declaration, the cowardly inciters to the force and tyranny which were practised against the Irish Members last Saturday, and I name Her Majesty's Government as the guilty authors."—(3 Hansard, [271] 1287.)
  There is no withdrawal whatever of the charge of infamy on the part of the Chairman of Committees, and it was no statement made in the heat of the moment. Now, the real question is, why should you pass a more severe sentence on the hon. Member for the Camborne Division than was passed on Mr. O'Donnell? I think it is much to be regretted that there should be an endeavour to establish any severer rule in this case. Surely the Government will feel that it is of very great importance for us, if possible, to come to a unanimous decision; and that this matter should be the subject of a Party vote, I think is highly objectionable. What has been the temper and spirit shown in the debate? I confess I believe that, if the Government press for a severer sentence than that which, in accordance with the precedents of the House, has been passed in similar cases, they will be taking a course which will necessarily lead to a Party Division on this Motion. That would be very regrettable, and I hope the Government will take a course far more conducive, in my opinion, to the dignity of the House, and pass a sentence on the hon. Member for the Camborne Division more in accordance with Parliamentary precedent, and which would secure unanimous consent.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, in comparing the offence of Mr. O'Donnell with that of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division, said that Mr. O'Donnell had received great provocation, and that his offence was committed in the heat of the moment. Now, certainly the provocation which the hon. Member for the Camborne Division received was very severe. The first point I refer to is that, in the words of the Chairman, the hon. Member for the Camborne Division was stopped in
  96
  putting his Amendment on the second reading of a Bill by a Motion for closure. That Amendment had been on the Paper for three or four weeks, and such a proceeding was absolutely unknown. The second point is one which I do not think has been noticed in the course of the debate. Several Drainage Bills were brought forward by Conservative Members, and it is well known that the hon. Member for the Camborne Division objected to those Bills. Among others, the hon. Gentleman objected to the Bill of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill). The noble Lord then moved that the Order for the Second Reading of his Bill be discharged, because it was objected to by the hon. Member.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: That is not at all the reason. I did so because it was not possible to pass the Bill at this period of the Session.
  COLONEL NOLAN: That may have been the reason of the noble Lord; but I am perfectly certain as to the words of the noble Lord, which were that—"In consequence of the opposition of the hon. Member, he would now move that the Bill be discharged." That is my recollection of the circumstance, and it is as distinct as that of the noble Lord's. I am only pointing out that the onus and responsibility for the withdrawal of the important Bill for the Bann Drainage having been thrown on the hon. Member for the Camborne Division, it became incumbent upon him to justify himself to the public. I put these points to the House simply to show that the hon. Member acted under great provocation—that a great deal happened last night which drove the hon. Member to write the letter; and, since the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has spoken of the provocation which Mr. O'Donnell received, I think that the hon. Member for the Camborne Division deserves quite as much mercy as he says was extended to the former on that ground. I certainly hope this will not be made a Party question.
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: I should like to make an explanation which may enable the House to come to a decision upon this question. So far as the time at which the occurrence took place is an element in arriving at a decision, I may say that my hon. Friend the Member for

  97
  Camborne Division of Cornwall told me at 2 o'clock this afternoon, before he came into the House, that the letter was written that morning after the House rose, and was posted within an hour of the transaction to which it relates.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I think not a few hon. Gentlemen who are sitting around me will agree with me when I urge the advisability, if possible, of somewhat diminishing the sentence proposed by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington. I think that some hon. Gentlemen here would support the suggestion of the Leader of the House—namely, that a month should be substituted for the indefinite term of the noble Lord. Personally, I am not prepared to support the proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), because it appears to me that the offence of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division is one of so serious a nature, and is such a direct insult upon Mr. Speaker, that it ought to be marked by a greater sentence than has been passed on other occasions. I hope, however, that the House will agree to modify somewhat the proposal of the noble Lord.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I hope that hon. Members opposite will recollect that there will be a very strong feeling outside the House when this matter is considered. We must bear in mind that the opinion outside the House of Commons is the opinion which supports the dignity of the House. I trust the House will take a more lenient view of this matter than has been suggested by the noble Lord. I believe there is no precedent for an accusation having been made and judgment passed upon the accused at the same time.
  DR. TANNER: In consequence of the feeling which appears to prevail in the House at the present time, I venture to suggest the advisability of the adjournment of this debate. I make the suggestion because, to judge from the expressions of opinion within the last few minutes, it appears to me the House wishes to do what was once ascribed to a certain jury, who condemned a prisoner to death in order that they might dine. Dinner appears to be the uppermost notion in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Is it right
  98
  or just to the constituency which is represented by the hon. Member (Mr. Conybeare)? Does it contribute to the dignity of this House that a question like this should be disposed of in this way? I have seen the Conservative Whips preventing Members from leaving the House. This Division, if one is taken, will be taken entirely and tee-totally on Party lines. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but if they, for a certain period, disfranchise a constituency, that constituency will consider it no laughing matter. It is no laughing matter that one of the Members of this House should be deprived of the privilege of sitting in Parliament for an indefinite time, for that is practically the question before the House. The First Lord of the Treasury has practically admitted that there is to be no Autumn Session. Hon. Members then endeavoured to ascertain for what period was the hon. Member to be suspended, and then, and then only, was there a little meeting between the First Lord of the Treasury and the noble Lord the Mover of the Motion. The First Lord of the Treasury, in order to endeavour to maintain his position before the House, and in order to endeavour to prevent his exposure before the country, wanted to get out of the difficulty of running away from his declaration that there should be an Autumn Session, and himself proposed that the hon. Member should be suspended for a month. Is that dignified? What have we seen to-night? We have seen the First Lord of the Treasury standing stammering in his place this evening. [Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!] I think that the position which this House at present occupies is one fraught with distinct danger to its own dignity. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh; but I recollect an occasion, only last year, when I occupied a position very nearly similar to that occupied now by my hon. Friend the Member for the Camborne Division. I did not consider that a laughing matter, and, what is more, I would urge the importance of the present situation upon hon. Members opposite. Is it to go to the country that a Member is to be deprived of his privileges because he constitutes what some hon. Members may term an obstruction in the House? That is a matter the country will take notice of. Personally, I deprecate the idea of

  99
  this House coming to a decision in this matter upon distinctly Party lines. Hon. Members opposite will go into the Lobby in support of the noble Lord; while hon. Members on the Opposition Benches will go into the Lobby in support of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division. Accordingly, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
  MR. W. REDMONDseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Dr. Tanner.)
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I trust the House will not entertain the Motion for adjournment. There has been already, I think, sufficient consideration given to the subject, and we ought now to come to a decision. I wish to state to the House the course I propose to take with regard to the Amendment and the Motion. The Question you, Mr. Speaker, will put from the Chair will be, "That those words stand part of the Question." I shall vote for that Motion in opposition to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and if my noble Friend's Motion becomes the substantive Motion I shall move a Proviso that the suspension shall not extend beyond one month.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: On the point of Order, I would like to ask whether the House can be asked to suspend a Member for the remainder of the Session, no matter how long that may be off, and add a Proviso that in no case shall the suspension last more than one month? It appears to me that it would be a rather ridiculous thing to do.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is a question rather for the interpretation of the House than a question of Order. If the House limits the suspension to one month, that Proviso could be added at the end.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I take it that what the noble Lord says is indisputable. It would be a grammatical absurdity to state that a Gentleman shall be suspended for the Session, and then add that he should be suspended for a month, unless we have an assurance from the Government that the Session—either the present or the adjourned Session—shall not exceed a month. It seems that the regular course would be either that the noble Lord should withdraw his
  100
  Motion in favour of another Motion, or else that his Motion should be negatived. I take it that then the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) would become the substantive Motion, and that thereupon the Government could, if they liked, move that instead of for 14 days the suspension should be for a month. I hope the Government will take the course which will secure the unanimous vote of the House. In my opinion, that is the only course which is consistent with the dignity of the House, and I deeply regret that the Government, when they have the power of securing a result like that, should be parties to the imposition of a punishment for the severity of which I believe there is no precedent.
  MR. P. STANHOPE: I beg, Mr. Speaker, to call your attention to a point of Order. The Motion before the House is the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. SPEAKER: There has been nothing contrary to Order as yet.
  MR. P. STANHOPE: I think that the question requires further consideration on the part of this House, and I am certain that it requires a great deal more consideration outside this House. Hon. Members opposite will, I am sure, be the first to admit to-morrow, when they see the effect produced on public opinion, that they will be very unwise in taking up an attitude which can only be interpreted in the country as meaning that Irish Members are to be locked up in Ireland, and English Members are to be suspended from the service of the House.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I think that if the House will consider for a moment or two it may be able to hit on two or three reflections in favour of the adjournment of this debate. Hon. Members will regret hereafter if any precipitate steps are now taken. The situation, in many respects, is a novel one. The majority of this House has declared already that the hon. Member for the Camborne Division has been guilty of a gross libel upon the Chair. That is a very serious matter, and this House would be unworthy of respect in any quarter if it failed to follow up a decision of that kind with some distinct step. It is necessary to the very existence of this House that it should vindicate not only its own autho-

  101
  rity, but the authority also of the Chair. But the majority of this House who came to that decision should remember also that they have placed the Chair in a position which, a little time ago, it did not hold. A little time ago, the Chair was as one amongst the Members of the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not now speaking to the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I was in hopes of being able to show that these considerations I was raising are very germane to the Motion for Adjournment. But, however, lest I should be found to be wanting in deference to the decision of the Chair, I will pass from the point. What I would urge further is this—that the original circumstances from which the matter under consideration arose occurred, after all, only a very few hours ago—occurred late last night, or rather early this morning, at the end of a prolonged Sitting. Foot hot upon those proceedings the hon. Member for the Camborne Division wrote a letter. The paper upon which that letter was printed and circulated to the public was scarcely dry before the matter was sprung upon the attention of the House. It would be exceedingly hard if, under these circumstances, the House were driven into a precipitate course of conduct which it would afterwards have cause to regret. Another reflection, I submit, is this—that on previous occasions, before a Member has been sentenced to a punishment, he has always known what view the House took of his offence. On this occasion the hon. Member was directed to withdraw before he knew, and before he could know, what particular view the House would take of his offence. The House, since the hon. Gentleman's withdrawal, has come to a decision of a very serious character. It appears to me that to sentence the hon. Member for the offence now imputed to him, without his having had an opportunity of submitting himself to the judgment of the House, or of explaining the matter, would be strictly unfair. For every reason it is desirable to defer the decision in this matter.
  MR. BRUNNER: I think that if the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will take a few hours to consider this matter, and adjourn the debate until to-morrow, he will find that a con-
  102
  siderable majority of the Gentlemen sitting around him are in favour of a fortnight's, instead of a month's, suspension. If the right hon. Gentleman will throw overboard his mutinous follower (Lord Randolph Churchill) we will stand by him.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 133; Noes 277: Majority 144.—(Div. List, No. 231.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words 'remainder of the Session' stand part of the Question."
  MR. BIGGAR: I understand, from the tenour of the discussion which has taken place, that the real purport of the question now really is, whether the suspension shall be for 14 days or 28 days? I do not know whether I ought to offer any advice—I think I will not—but, at the same time, I should like to ask the Government whether they think it is discreet to keep up a distinction between those two terms? What may take place? As pointed out before, the hon. Member for the Camborne Division may get elected for the Camborne Division again, and come in with a triumphant majority. That could not be a very pleasing thing for the Government, or for anyone who had been parties to this attack upon him. Even supposing the hon. Gentleman does not appeal to the electors of Camborne, he, at least, may attend political meetings in the meantime, and may denounce all parties concerned in these proceedings. I do not think that is a prospect that any of the parties concerned look forward to with any equanimity. I should like to state what I have heard since the last Division took place. At the present moment copies of The Star are selling in the streets at 6d. a-piece. That shows that the people outside are already taking the side of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division. The effect of that will be to discredit, not only the decision of the Speaker, but also the decision of the majority of this House. With reference to the Bann Drainage Bill, I may say that I did not communicate in any way with the authorieties of the House to the effect that no discussion was likely to take place. I have not the slightest doubt that a communication of some sort was made to Mr. Speaker, that it was probable that

  103
  the Bill would not be discussed by the Irish Members. But those sort of things are always uncertain and unreliable. I think that, taking everything into account, it would be well that a reasonable amount of discussion should take place on all important questions.
  SIR CHARLES DALRYMPLE: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member (Mr. Biggar) in reference to the commercial transactions of which he spoke. I rise for a definite purpose. I believe that the feeling on this side would be met by the suspension of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division for one month. I believe that such a decision would be arrived at on this side without haste or heat; and, incredible as it may appear to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), I must say that the only fear we have is lest there should be an appearance of vindictiveness upon our part. Let me recall to the House what happened a short time ago when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) spoke upon this question. Following the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), the right hon. Gentleman clearly had never contemplated so short a period of suspension as a fortnight. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke he took exception, and very naturally and properly, to the vagueness of the period "until the end of the Session;" but plainly the right hon. Gentleman at that time never thought of anything short of a suspension until the period when the House was prorogued in August, or had adjourned in August with a view to an Autumn Session. I think, if I am not mistaken, the view of the right hon. Gentleman then expressed would be adequately met by the suspension of the hon. Member for one month. Certainly, I am confident, from what the right hon. Gentleman said, he never contemplated so short a suspension as a fortnight, and he only adopted that period, after hearing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan), in palliation of the offence of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division.
  MR. FLYNN: I think it is not advisable, after what has been said, to refer at any length to the pro-
  104
  ceedings of last night. Still, in considering the punishment to be inflicted in this case, it is absolutely necessary we should bear in mind the proceedings which led to an outbreak of temper on the part of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division. I sat behind the hon. Member last night. I was aware of the interest he took in the question. For weeks I have been in communication with him upon the subject, and have rather deprecated the Amendment he put down against the Land Drainage Bills. But I was perfectly well aware of his anxiety and eagerness in the matter; and, sitting behind him last night as I did, I must confess that he felt at the time extremely indignant at what he believed to be a misapplication of the closure. I think that the House, in deciding between a month's and a fortnight's suspension, should also recollect that the letter must have been written at an early hour this morning, while the hon. Member was still labouring under excitement, and still fresh from the rather painful scene which had occurred. The letter appeared in the early edition of The Star newspaper; and, therefore, it must have been written between 2 and half-past 2 o'clock this morning, immediately after the House rose. I do not think it will add to the dignity of the House—certainly it will not add strength to the Government—if they take such advantage of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division as to inflict a severe sentence upon him. It will be impossible to remove from the minds of his constituents the idea that there is another reason behind this proceeding besides that of punishing him for the offence he has committed. It will be impossible to remove that opinion from the minds of the people of Camborne, and I fear that a suspicion of vindictiveness in these proceedings will be entertained by people outside the district of Camborne. I appeal to the Government to act sensibly in this matter, to lean to the side of moderation, to accept frankly and at once the proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and be content with inflicting the punishment of suspension for a fortnight upon the hon. Member for the Camborne Division for what he did in the heat of the moment, and for doing what I am sure he did out of a sense of public duty, and out of a

  105
  sense of the duty he owed to his constituents.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: I wish, before we come to a decision, to make an appeal to the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill). I am not aware whether the noble Lord, in making this Motion, had in his mind the prospect of an adjourned Autumn Session. If he had no such idea, then probably it was not his intention that the hon. Member for the Camborne Division should be suspended for more than a month. I should be very glad if the noble Lord would assure us he had no wish that an extreme or a vindictive sentence should be passed on the hon. Member. The hon. Member for the Camborne Division speaks from a place with which the noble Lord is very familiar. Many of us remember when the noble Lord occupied that position, and when the noble Lord tried the patience of hon. Members of his own Party very sorely. Besides, it is not to be forgotten that the hon. Member for the Camborne Division is a new Member of the House. That, at any rate, is a reason why he should not be proceeded against with any very great severity. I think the House of Commons will have secured everything the case calls for, if they unanimously decide in favour of a fortnight's suspension, rather than there should be what must show itself to the country as nothing but a Party vote, if a month's suspension is insisted upon. We, on this side, hold that the hon. Member has not exceeded the irregularity of Mr. O'Donnell when he was in this House, and in which case the punishment of a fortnight's suspension was inflicted. It cannot be disguised from the House that there were many Members sorely grieved and disappointed at the action taken by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Macartney) in moving the closure upon the Drainage Bill last night. It is a very unfortunate thing if, upon the second reading of a Bill, all discussion is to be stopped. By the course taken by the hon. Member for South Antrim, many of us were precluded from taking part in the debate. I can easily understand that the hon. Member for the Camborne Division was, under such circumstances, moved to do that which in a cooler moment he would not have done. Under all the circumstances, I trust that we
  106
  shall be saved from a Party Division, and that it will be unanimously agreed that a fortnight's suspension, rather than a month's, should be the extent of the punishment inflicted upon the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support a fortnight's suspension rather than a month's, I can fancy you in your Chair, Sir, are saying the old proverb——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 229; Noes 152: Majority 77.—(Div. List, No. 232.)
  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I now beg to add to the Motion the words "or for one calendar month, whichever shall first terminate."
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words "or for one calendar month, whichever shall first terminate."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  DR. TANNER: There is a little ambiguity about the word "mouth." Is it to be a calendar month or a lunar month? I beg to move the insertion of the word "weeks." The vote just taken has been taken on distinct Party lines. Every Conservative wont into the Lobby against the hon. Member for Camborne, while we went for him. I admit the victory of hon. Gentlemen, who have gone against a Member of this House out of pure spite and spleen.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Of course, we cannot oppose the Motion made by the right hon. Gentleman, because it goes in the direction of a limitation of the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington; but, at the same time, we cannot assent in any way to a Motion which is contrary to the opinions we expressed in the last Division. Therefore, it must be distinctly understood we maintain our protest against this sentence on the hon. Member for the Camborne Division. We think it exceeds the necessities of the case, and that it transgresses Parliamentary precedents by which we ought to be governed. Reference was made

  107
  to what fell earlier in the evening from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone); and I think it therefore right to say that, although he was obliged to leave the House a short time ago, he paired in favour of the Motion reducing the sentence to a fortnight's suspension. His opinion, therefore, is contrary to the decision at which the House is about to arrive—namely, to inflict a punishment which we consider altogether excessive. We shall, of course, take no part in this vote.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That Mr. Conybeare, Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall, be suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of the Session, or for one calendar month, whichever shall first terminate.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY [1ST JUNE].—REPORT.
  [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [12th July], "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  In answer to Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN (Denbighshire, E.),
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he had postponed the Vote at the request of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), who had given Notice of an Amendment. The Vote would be taken on Monday as the first Order of the Day.
  Debate further adjourned till Monday next.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
    (1.) £24,701, to complete the sum for the Charity Commission.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he desired to take the opportunity of asking two or three questions with regard to the work of the Charity Commission. In the first place, he was anxious to know what progress had been made with the work of the Parochial Charities branch, and when they might expect to have some scheme laid before the House in pursuance of the provisions of the Act of 1883? He would also like to know whether it was probable that the work of the Commission would be completed within the time originally fixed by the Act? He also wished to hear something with regard to the grants of money which the Commission had already promised to make to various institutions. He did not for a moment doubt the judgment of the Commissioners in the matter. The appointment of Mr. Anstie was most fortunate, and everyone who had had occasion to watch his work felt great confidence in the judgment and knowledge he had shown; but, at the same time, they had seen so many statements in the newspapers of applications made to the Commissioners, and of encouragement given by the Commissioners, that one became a little anxious to know how large a part of the total sum governed by the Act—and especially of that part of it which was applied to secular purposes—had been virtually promised by the Commissioners, and how much remained to meet the needs which might be expected from time to time. They had heard particulars of the various promises made to grant sums of money in aid of different institutions for promoting technical education. That was certainly an admirable object, an object which had come into particular favour during the last three or four years, but it was not an object which had primarily a particularly strong claim on charity funds. It was an object which could be met, as was proposed in the Bill the Government had withdrawn, by the general law—it was an object for which they might very properly draw from certain funds which already existed in London altogether unconnected with these charities. Therefore, those of them most interested in the parochial charities' money and its distribution felt no particular wish to see a very large proportion of that money applied to purposes like that of

    109
    technical education. He felt that those objects which, perhaps, had the greatest claim on those charity funds were objects which were more specifically in the interest of the poorer classes of the community. It was especially with the view of making the lives of the poorer classes better and happier, and of affording such classes greater opportunities of recreation, that these funds ought to be applied. He felt that particularly with regard to such objects as recreative schools, recreation grounds, and open spaces. He hoped they would be told that night that the Commissioners were paying full attention to such objects, that in making promises in support of technical education they were not forgetting the numerous other objects which had an equally strong claim upon them. It ought also to be borne in mind that there were a great many objects for which it was impossible to provide at the very moment. It would be a great pity if all the money were spent at once, if there was not to be reserved such a balance as would enable the needs of future years to be properly provided for. He trusted that these considerations, all of which arose from the Act itself, would be fully borne in mind by the Commissioners, and that the Committee would be told to-night when they might hope to receive the schemes, and when they might expect the work, to which the Commissioners had devoted themselves with so much energy, would be completed.
    MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, he was happy to be able to give the hon. Gentleman the particular information which he desired. The first of the parochial schemes—namely, that which affected the parish of St. Botolph's, Bishopsgate, was recently considered by the Board, and they hoped very soon to publish it. Of course, a good deal of time had been taken up in the consideration of the first scheme, because it would form, to a considerable extent, a precedent with regard to the others. That might, perhaps, account for the slight delay which had arisen. The hon. Gentleman asked him whether all the business would be concluded before the powers of the Commission under the Act expired? It was the hope of the Commission that that might be so. Of course, as
    110
    the hon. Gentleman would see, a great deal would depend upon the amount of voluntary assistance which was forthcoming in connection with the Polytechnics to be established in the North, South, and South-West of London. If money were readily forthcoming, and the amounts were rapidly made up, it would, of course, assist the Commissioners very much in the preparation of the schemes, and they would be able to get them done much more quickly than if they had to wait for money and larger subscriptions to come in. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the question of technical education. The Polytechnics, which it was the intention of the Commissioners to establish in the different parts of the Metropolis, did not contemplate technical education alone. Technical education would only form a portion of the subjects which the poorer classes would be able to be brought in contact with in the Polytechnics. For instance, there would be swimming baths, gymnasiums, reading rooms, orchestras, choral societies, and a variety of amusements, to say nothing of cricket and bicycle clubs, and other clubs which, having this nucleus, would very likely come into being. Therefore, the whole of the money would certainly not be spent in technical education. In regard to the grants for the special objects as to which the hon. Gentleman asked a question, perhaps it would be most convenient if he (Mr. J. W. Lowther) stated generally the manner in which the Commission proposed at present to expend the funds which would be at their disposal. The hon. Gentleman, no doubt, remembered that by an Act of Parliament the sum of £50,000 out of the money at the disposal of the Commissioners was allotted to the purchase of Parliament Hill. That money was gone, so to speak; and in the case of the Clissold Park, Stoke Newington, £47,500 was the sum similarly taken. In addition to that, the Commissioners proposed to spend on open spaces, £10,000 on North Woolwich Gardens; a sum of £12,500 upon Carroun House, Vauxhall, which was a third of the total amount which was to be given for the estate; a similar sum of £12,500 towards the Rayleigh Park, Brixton, which was one-third of the total price of the land, making a total amount spent on open spaces of

    111
    £132,500. As to the Polytechnics, of course, the decisions of the Commissioners were not absolutely final until they were embodied in the schemes which would have the force of law; but at present it was under consideration to spend £85,000 in giving subventions to the People's Palace, which would make a sum roughly of £2,500 year by year, as an endowment of that institution. It was also proposed to give a similar sum of £2,500 a-year to the Polytechnic in Regent Street, which, as the Commission knew, had been founded and sustained mainly by the energy and public spirit of Mr. Quintin Hogg. With regard to the three large parishes which were specially mentioned in the Act, it was proposed to devote a sum of about £200,000 towards the needs which arose in those parishes. As the hon. Gentleman knew, the proposal of the Charity Commissioners was to give in South London up to £150,000 a pound for every pound subscribed. In that way they hoped to get such a sum as would enable them to establish three Polytechnics in South London—he called them Polytechnics for want of a better general term. In addition to that they proposed to give a sum of £50,000 in the same way, giving a pound for every pound subscribed, towards a Polytechnic in Chelsea, which would cover the South West district of London, north of the River. He was glad to say that most of these matters had been very warmly and very generously taken up by the inhabitants of the localities, and by many generously-disposed persons. The only proposal which apparently seemed to at all hang fire was that with regard to the Polytechnics in North London. He believed that the hon. Baronet the Member for one of the Divisions of St. Pancras (Sir Julian Goldsmid) was interesting himself in the matter; in fact, he believed a Committee had been formed of Members of the House, representing various portions of North London, to consider this very important question. The Charity Commissioners had money at their disposal, and they were anxious to spread it over the whole of the Metropolis in the fairest possible manner. The Commissioners felt, as to North London, that if it had not a greater claim it certainly bad as great a claim as South London to be dealt with in this matter, and they made
    112
    a similar proposal to the people of the North as to the South. He presumed, however, that the feeling in North London was not so concentrated and so localized as it was in South London, and that, therefore, the proposal of the Commission had not been so warmly taken up. He hoped, now that attention had been called to the matter by the Committee which the hon. Baronet had got together, proposals might be made by that Committee which the Commissioners would be most happy to reciprocate. There was a considerable sum left over which it was intended to hand over to the general Governing Body when that Body was established. About £5,500 per annum would be at the disposal of the general Governing Body to make just such grants as those to which the hon. Gentleman referred. They would have that sum at their disposal as soon as they were formed. But, in addition to that, he reminded the hon. Gentleman that as the pensions which were necessarily created under the Act as vested interests fell in, so more and more money would become available for such purposes as the general Governing Body might think most useful in the direction which the hon. Gentleman had indicated. He thought he had now dealt with all the points the hon. Gentleman had raised, but he should be happy to give the hon. Gentleman whatever further information he desired.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, he wished to reserve his judgment respecting the statement made by the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. J. W. Lowther) until he had had more opportunity of considering it. As far as he could gather, the hon. Member had not expressed any very definite opinion as to whether the work of the Commission would be completed by December, 1889, the date which had been fixed for the termination of its labours; and he should be glad if the hon. Gentleman could make a clearer statement on that point. He should also be glad if the hon. Member could place in the Library of the House copies of the statements prepared by the Commissioners respecting the property of the City charities. One of the duties of the Commissioners

    113
    was to frame schemes for the better application of the funds of the City charities. It appeared to have been contemplated that schemes would be issued from time to time before the inquiry was completed, and he understood that one scheme was shortly to be published. But from the Annual Report of the Commissioners he did not derive very strong hopes that the work of the Commission was approaching its completion, and this appeared to be specially the case with regard to ecclesiastical property. He hoped the hon. Member for Penrith would see his way to place in the Library of the House copies of all schemes, as they were issued, as well as of the statements drawn up by the Commissioners.
    MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, he knew that Mr. Anstie, the Commissioner who was specially charged with this part of the business of the Charity Commission, was greatly impressed with the desirableness of completing his work by December of next year. Several of the schemes depended for their execution not merely on the Commission, but, to a considerable extent, upon the readiness of the public to come forward with subscriptions to assist the Charity Commission in framing schemes sufficiently wide in their scope to meet the general desire. He thought there would be no objection to placing copies of the statements in the Library of the House of Commons. The Commissioners did not yet know the exact amount that would be available under several of the schemes, because appeals in the Chancery Division were still pending, and until they were decided they could not say what was available and what was not.
    MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, that a short time ago Mr. Anstie, replying to the statements made by a deputation which waited upon him on the subject of establishing Polytechnics in London, said it was intended to open one in Bishopsgate Street. He wished to ask the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. J. W. Lowther) whether it was still intended to provide such an institution in that neighbourhood; and, if so, what was to be its character? He desired to impress upon the hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues the expediency of some section of the technical work in such an institution being connected with the cabinet-making trades,
    114
    which flourished greatly in that part of London, and were much in need of such assistance. Cabinet-making which found its way all over the world was done in that part of London, and the cabinet makers there were consequently brought into constant competition with foreign countries, in many of which good systems of technical education were in force. Under these circumstances, he thought it would be a great been to that part of the Metropolis if the suggestion he had made could be carried out. He, also, desired to know whether there was any reasonable prospect of a Polytechnic being set up in that part of North London which was traversed by the Kingsland Road?
    MR. J. ROWLANDSsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Penrith was rather unfair to the general public when he said that some of the schemes depended for their execution more on the public than on the Charity Commissioners. In North London people had not been negligent in making representations to the Commission, but they had not yet obtained any definite scheme from the Commission. A few weeks ago representations were made to the Commissioners as to what the centre of London was prepared to do. The Commissioners did not, in reply, recommend any scheme, but said that people in North London must be prepared to take action with regard to a larger area. Before long the Commissioners would have an opportunity of dealing with a larger area, as negotiations were now going on upon the subject. What he wanted, however, to impress on the Charity Commissioners was that they must not think they could dictate terms as to how much money could be raised in certain parts of London. During the last 12 months the public of London had responded very liberally to appeals made by some of the institutions which had already obtained their endowments. The fact that the People's Palace in the East End and the Polytechnic in Regent Street had already obtained large sums from the public showed that the resources of the public in these matters had been to some extent exhausted. There were some people who would have to fight the Commissioners very severely for the funds the latter were administering unless the Commissioners met them very generously. After all,

    115
    the money was the money of the people of London, and they must do the best they could with it. Some of them were prepared to try and raise as much money as they could to supplement that which was provided by the Commissioners; but it was of no good for the Commissioners to place before them some scheme which could not be carried out. The hon. Member for Hoxton (Mr. James Stuart) bad referred to the importance of technical education to the cabinet trade. He (Mr. J. Rowlands) represented a constituency in which there were a series of industries which required a thorough system of technical education—namely, the watch and jewellery trades. These trades had languished for want of technical education; and if those who were engaged in them did not meet the schemes of the Commissioners it was not because they were indifferent to the importance of having the best possible technical and recreative institutions in their midst, but because they had not among them wealthy persons who could give sites worth £20,000 or large sums of money. They had to depend upon gentlemen who were not located in the neighbourhood, and he was afraid they would not always be able to get those gentlemen to meet them in the spirit in which they ought to meet them, considering the value they got out of the North London property. It was a mistake to suppose that the people of London did not desire to meet the Commissioners; but, at the same time, they wished to know clearly and distinctly what the schemes were.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, the other day the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. C. S. Kenny) raised a question with respect to Holloway College, and showed that there had been on the part of the Charity Commissioners neglect of an obvious duty with regard to the composition of the Governing Body. It was notorious that the late Mr. Holloway had a horror of anything like sectarianism, and his resolve in setting aside a large sum of money for his grand educational institution was that no sectarian advantage of any kind should be associated with its management. He believed it was felt that his hon. Friend (Mr. C. S. Kenny) had made out his case in that respect; but the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. J. W. Lowther) told the Com-
    116
    mittee that it was not the practice of the Commissioners to inquire into the religious faith of any Governors who might be appointed. If that was the case, it was an extraordinary change in the policy of the Commissioners. Some time back nothing was more common or notorious than that the greatest regard was paid by the Commissioners, in the case of certain Church endowments, to the appointment solely of members of the Church of England to the Governing Body. In 1883 the late Lord Lyttelton, who was the Chairman of the Endowed Schools Commission, admitted that nothing was more common than for the Commissioners, in making an appointment, to have regard to the fact that the candidate was or was not a member of the Church of England.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I ought to point out to the Committee that the policy of the Charity Commission in this respect was discussed at great length at a previous Sitting, and a decision was taken. It would be rather perilous to re-open precisely the same question, because the Vote itself is not concluded. I would also point out to the hon. Member that he is now quoting evidence as to the action of the Endowed Schools Commission, which ceased to exist, and had its powers transferred to the Charity Commission three years ago.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he did not wish to detain the Committee long, but as the hon. Member for Penrith stated that it was the policy of the Commissioners not to inquire into the religious opinions of Governors, he desired to know whether he adhered to that statement?
    MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, in reply to the hon. Member for Hoxton (Mr. James Stuart), he had to state that he believed it was in contemplation by the Commission, at all events, to assist in setting up some institution in St. Botolph's, Bishopsgate, and that this might provide the instruction which the hon. Member wished for. In reply to the hon. Member for East Finsbury (Mr. J. Rowlands), he could only say that the Commission was most anxious to help those who helped themselves. If the people of any locality should desire to have polytechnics, the Commission was very ready to assist them. In distributing the funds, however, the Commission would bear in mind that they had to distribute evenly, as far as they

    117
    could, over the whole of London. With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), it was perfectly true that the Commissioners did not inquire into the religious views of the gentlemen who were appointed Governors of Holloway College. If, however, a trust were of a denominational character, he conceived it would be the duty of the Commission in certain cases to inquire into the religious views of those whom they appointed. Where a trust was not of a denominational character, it had been the custom of the Commission not to inquire into the religious belief of those who were appointed.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he wished to call attention not to the question of the income of the Commissioners, but to the relationship subsisting between them and the taxpayers of the country. The entire Vote which had to be put from the Chair for the forthcoming year was about £36,700. To that had been added the sums mentioned in a Vote in the Estimates, amounting to £5,194. This made a total of something like £41,800. The City of London parochial charities accounted for nearly £4,000 of this sum, and as this had to be repaid out of the funds of the London charities he put down the net charge at something like £37,000. This was a growing charge, and it was growing very rapidly. It had been the subject of very frequent discussions in that House. He did not wish to go into details. The great bulk of the charge, or over £31,000, went in salaries alone. These salaries were on a very liberal scale. There were a large number of very highly paid clerks, and 21 lower division clerks, whilst the sum of £1,900, representing about £40 a-week, was charged for copyists. He contented himself with merely calling the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to this matter, and expressing the opinion that strict supervision ought to be exercised. The main question, however, to which he wished to direct attention was this—Was it right or proper that this money should be voted out of the public funds at all? Why should the taxpayers be called upon to pay the expense of the Charity Commission? Charities had permanent duration; they had special protection, and were subject to special
    118
    control. The Charity Commission, by a very simple procedure, afforded to charities the relief and protection which could formerly only be obtained through the Courts of Law at great cost to themselves. It appointed new trustees, settled schemes, gave advice, made vesting orders, and did various other things for charities at the public expense. Could this state of things be defended, or ought it to continue? This was a very old controversy, and he should have to trouble the Committee with a brief reference to it. Men of much greater experience than himself, and men who were much more competent to deal with the question, had been calling the attention of the House to it for several years, and successive Governments had pledged themselves to deal with it. As far back as the year 1868, the present Sir Gabriel Goldney, then a Member of the House of Commons, called the attention of the House to the great cost which the Commission was even then incurring, although the expenditure was not then half as much as it was now; and he moved a Resolution expressing the opinion that the cost of the Commission ought not to be borne by the public. That Resolution was seconded by his right hon. Friend the present Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers). The right hon. Gentleman spoke strongly in favour of it, and there was a general opinion in that House in its favour; and the late Lord Beaconsfield was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Seeing that the Committee was strongly in its favour, an Amendment was moved, the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that he was ready to assent to the Motion if the word "entirely" were added before the word "borne," meaning that the entire cost should not be borne by the public, but that the Commissioners should bear their proportion. The right hon. Gentleman opposite the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) hoped that the word "entirely" would not be agreed to, as it would invite the inference that the charge should be borne partly by the public. Nothing came of that Resolution, which was carried by a narrow majority. In 1871 the question was brought before the House by Mr. Andrew Johnston, who proposed that the Income Tax should be levied on charity funds. Mr. Lowe, now Lord Sherbrooke, who was then Chancellor of the Exche-

    119
    quer, expressed a strong opinion in favour of the Income Tax being imposed upon charities, and practically that opinion was accepted. In 1879 the matter was again brought forward by the hon. Gentleman the present Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James), and an interesting debate ensued, in the course of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) spoke, as he had done in 1871, against the public being charged with this payment in respect to the charity funds. He should like to quote the figures given to the House in that debate by Sir Gabriel Goldney. He said that the property of the charities in this country yielded £4,000,000 a-year, and had increased to the extent of £750,000 during 12 years, and he added that they were so nursed by the country that they were exempt from paying Income Tax and other duties; and that the charity fund, if capitalized, would amount to something like £130,000,000. To his (Mr. Henry H. Fowler's) mind that was an excessive figure; but, at any rate, whatever the amount was, there was a strong feeling on that occasion in favour of this charge to the State ceasing. Sir Stafford Northcote, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, declared that it was desirable to meet the expenses of the charities out of their own funds, and said that there was no means by which they could do so without imposing a small tax for that purpose. He undertook to deal with it, and in 1879 a Bill was brought in under the auspices of the then Secretary to the Treasury, now, he believed, the Member for one of the Divisions of Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson). That right hon. Gentleman proposeda scheme to the House and to the country. Well, there was a great gathering of the clans against that Bill. Deputations waited upon Sir Stafford Northcote at Downing Street, and it seemed that the world would come to an end if the charity were deprived of this subsidy from the State in addition to the income they enjoyed. The Government happened to be in extremis at the time, and in the result they declined to fight the charity interests of the country, and the Bill was withdrawn by Lord Beaconsfield's Government. The question then slumbered until 1884, when he (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) had the honour to bring it
    120
    before the attention of the House. He had drawn the attention to the fact that at that time there were £11,000,000 in Consols standing in the name of the official trustees, and in this very Vote they were called upon to agree to that night there was a sum of £150 to one of these gentlemen as being one of the official trustees of the charity funds—the country paid this sum to this gentleman for being a nominal trustee for these enormous charity funds, which were placed wholly under the control of the Commissioners. There was an interesting debate on the question that evening, and the then Secretary to the Treasury—who was, he thought he might say without disparagement to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Jackson), the ablest Secretary who had filled that post during the present generation—(Mr. Courtney) said that—
    "As to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) and the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sir Gabriel Goldney), there could be no doubt whatever as to the justice, and he might almost say as to the necessity, of taxing the charities to an extent which would at least cover the expenses of the Commissioners."
    Well, that Secretary to the Treasury, strong as he was, had the excuses that all Secretaries to the Treasury urged. He said—
    "No one could doubt that at the fag end of a Session, or the fag end of a Parliament, it would be a very difficult thing to carry a measure upon the subject through the House."—(3 Hansard, [290] 1529–30.)
    Parliament was then about to deal with the question of the franchise; the Parliament was a dying Parliament, and it was not disposed to take up this question of charity funds. After the Dissolution at that time there followed several reconstructions of the Government, and during one of those reconstructions he (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) was Secretary to the Treasury, and he had intended, if he had remained in the Office, to have done his best to tackle the question. It was a question which in theory it seemed simple enough to deal with; but no one knew better than he did that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer endeavoured to deal with it would have a difficult task before him. It would be a task of enormous difficulty to proceed by means of a complete scheme; but the principle he wished to

    121
    urge was this—that the cost of this great, expensive, powerful, and valuable establishment which was carried on for the control and management of our charities, the jurisdiction of which he should like to see very much extended and its powers very much increased, ought not to fall on the general public. To his mind the cost should be defrayed by the charities themselves for whose benefit the establishment was carried on. That was all he desired to say. He knew the time was valuable. He was not going to try to enforce this argument, unless he heard something stated in opposition to it, which would necessitate a reply. He wished simply to state the proposition he had laid down. It had received the sanction of, he thought, every statesman except the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) who had held the Office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. No financier had disputed it; the House of Commons had approved of it; and although he admitted that it involved great administrative difficulty, he held it to be one which the present Treasury had had strength and ability enough to deal with if it chose. This was the position which he wished to submit to the House, and he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to be in his place that evening. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give them his views on the question, and that they would have such an expression of opinion from him as to lead them to entertain the hope that, at all events, he would, in the course of the forthcoming Recess, endeavour to deal with the matter and see if he was not able to lay down a complete scheme, or, at all events, the broad outlines of a scheme, which would apply to the charities the principle which he (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) had laid down, and which he should like to see conducted, not only in connection with charities, but in connection with every other Department—such as the Land Register Office.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, he was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman had brought this matter before the attention of the Committee, and he regretted that there were so few Members present, as he should have been glad for the sound views of the right
    122
    hon. Gentleman on this question to have been hoard by a larger number of the present Members of the House. One word with regard to the observations the right hon. Gentleman had made as to the cost of this Establishment. The right hon. Gentleman had called attention to what he had criticized as the somewhat extravagant nature of the Establishment, and the large number of highly-paid officers who were engaged in the work of superintendence of these charities. He (Mr. Goschen) would not enter into the question as to the degree to which the observations of the right hon. Gentleman were justified.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he had not used the word "extravagant," but the words "costly and expensive."
    MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, yes; "costly and expensive," rather than "extravagant;" but the difference between "costly and expensive" and "extravagant" was one rather of appreciation than of fact, for that which was expensive generally deserved that description in consequence of extravagance somewhere or other. The right hon. Gentleman, at all events, suggested that the Department was not an economically managed one. Well, he (Mr. Goschen) did not wish to pursue this matter; but in this regard he only wished to point out that the Government were powerless to reduce Establishments, because the House had decided that reductions were not to be made unless employment could be found for the redundant officers who were removed from the over-manned Department. But this was not the point of the interesting speech of the right hon. Gentleman. His point was that the charities should bear the cost of the Establishment which had been formed precisely in order to administer them, and to afford them valuable help and privileges. He was entirely of the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that the charities did possess valuable privileges. The Legislature had created a costly machinery for assisting in their administration, and the taxpayers of the country generally paid a large sum for this laudable object. Opinions differed as to the degree in which the charities should bear the expense of this control exercised over them. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that most Chancellors of the Exchequer agreed that the charities ought to contribute largely

    123
    to the cost of the Commission, if they did not defray the cost entirely; but he doubted whether there were at that moment five Members present in the House who would endorse the views of the right hon. Gentleman. There was the right hon. Gentleman himself; there was his (Mr. Goschen's) hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson), there was the hon. Gentleman who occupied the Chair (Mr. Courtney), and who had some time ago so ably discharged the duties of Secretary to the Treasury, and there was himself (Mr. Goschen). But when it came to the question of sentiment versus the just economic principle of taxing charities, he doubted very much whether the principle would obtain much support from either side of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] He should be very glad to hear a louder murmur of assent from the Benches opposite; but hitherto failure, as the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out, had attended every effort made by successive Governments, by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer or Secretaries to the Treasury, to put any burden whatever upon charities. The House of Commons was favourable to the idea in the abstract; but as soon as the charities began to organize demonstrations the valour of the House of Commons disappeared. If the Government were to begin to tax charities, he was afraid he would have much longer processions waiting upon him than even those got up by persons interested in the Wheel and Carriage Tax. There was no subject that seemed to excite some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen more than did any attempt to diminish, in the slightest degree, the revenues of our great charities and charitable institutions. Whatever Chancellor of the Exchequer laid an unhallowed finger upon any of these revenues was immediately exposed to an opposition such as not even the genius of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian had hitherto been able to overcome. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman opposite had raised this question, and he (Mr. Goschen) would undertake to examine into the best modes of securing some contribution from charities towards the general taxation, and he should be glad if support could be secured in advance for such a proposal; but he was bound to say, with the expe-
    124
    rience of the past, the prospect was not a very cheerful one. Hitherto all attempts had failed. The efforts to relieve the State from the cost of dealing with charities began substantially in 1844. In 1852 a general rate of 2d. in the pound on the gross annual income of every charity exceeding £10 a-year was proposed; but objections were taken by the large hospitals of the country, and they entirely overcame the resolution of the Government, and nothing was done. In 1863 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian proposed to repeal the exemption of charities from the Income Tax, and this was one of those several occasions on which the right hon. Gentleman displayed the whole of the resources of his rhetorical and economical genius, but he failed to persuade the House to tax the charities. In 1864 and 1865 it was proposed that a Stamp Duty should be imposed on all orders and certificates issued by the Commissioners, and on the annual accounts rendered to them by trustees of charities; but the proposal was negatived without a Division. In 1869 a clause was inserted in the Charitable Trusts Act of that year, in pursuance of the Resolution passed on the Motion of Sir Gabriel Goldney, empowering the Treasury to fix a scale of fees; but nothing came of that. No scale was drawn up, as the Commissioners represented that the amount leviable would be too small to trouble about. In 1871 a Resolution was passed in favour of subjecting charities to Income Tax, but no action was taken upon that; and what happened in 1874 had already been stated by the right hon. Gentleman. In face of all these failures, and of the extreme reluctance on the part of the Government as well as Members of the House to take anything from the charities, it would be too sanguine to expect any great result from an attempt to exact from charities the fall amount of taxation they should pay. But if he remained in Office he did not know that he should shrink from making the attempt, at any rate, to tax the larger Charity Corporations. The right hon. Gentleman opposite stated that the Government had a great deal of force behind them; but hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House were swayed by sentiment with regard to charities, just as much as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in any

    125
    other part of the House, and he was afraid that it would not be in the power of the Government to carry out the object the right hon. Gentleman had in view. His desire was that the charities should be made self-supporting; but there was not only a difficulty of principle in the matter—a difficulty in regard to which he was afraid they would find much opposition—but there was also much difficulty of detail, particularly in devising some system which would not weigh unduly on the smaller and on the weaker charities. Taxation would not press so much on the larger charities, which might be able to bear the expense of their management. But this would not be the case with all the smaller charities. In response to the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman, he had to say that he should be glad to further investigate the subject, and if he thought there was sufficient prospect of support on the other side, he would be glad to consider whether or not some contribution should not be made by charities in respect of the cost of their management, as the way in which this cost was at present defrayed was a burden upon the general community for the purpose of relieving charities which went to the benefit of particular classes. He disapproved of the system of taxing the community to assist specific charitable institutions, holding that they should be supported out of the pockets of people who sympathized with their objects. It was a poor form of sympathy with charities to say that the general taxpayer should contribute towards them in order to increase their funds. He trusted that the observations he had made would show the right hon. Gentleman opposite that he was in sympathy with him in regard to the task he wished to see undertaken; but, in view of the fruitless attempts which had been made in past years, he could not pledge himself to carry out any particular scheme. All he could promise was that he would take the same pains that the right hon. Gentleman himself would take if he were in his place to carry out the objects the right hon. Gentleman had in view.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.)said, he must honestly confess that he was not at all in sympathy with the observations of either of the right hon. Gentlemen who had just
    126
    spoken. He was wholly against the taxing of charities, believing that the poor already bore too large a proportion of the burden of taxation, and that the rich did not pay a sufficiently large proportion. He did not grudge the charities the sum they cost the State, particularly as he regarded it as voluntary taxation on the part of members of the community which indirectly went very largely to the reduction of the rates.
    MR. PICTONsaid, he must venture to disagree entirely with the view of the hon. Member who bad just spoken. The hon. Member seemed to think that these charities were a system of voluntary taxation; but a very large number of the charities of the country, especially those with which the Charity Commissioners had to deal, consisted of property handed down from the old pious founders, which, since the death of those founders, had been largely increased in value by the labour of the community. To speak of these funds, therefore, as a voluntary taxation was not fair. The hon. Member had neglected to observe that the system he recommended gave to every benevolent person the power of taxing people involuntarily. The hon. Member had stated that the rich did not pay their fair proportion of taxation; but if the cost of managing charities was defrayed out of the taxation of the country, how could the hon. Member guarantee that the necessary taxation would be imposed upon the rich? It was not imposed upon the rich; it was imposed upon the poor. He (Mr. Picton) believed that the poor paid an unfair proportion of the taxes of the country. He had been very glad indeed to hear the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had no doubt said all that could very well be expected of him under present circumstances, and it was extremely gratifying to hear that in principle he recognized the justice of the opinions advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. Perhaps he (Mr. Picton) might be permitted to remind the Committee that the attempts at the taxing of charities to which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had called attention, and which had ended in failure, were all of them attempts to charge the charities with the

    127
    expenses of the country at large; but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton had suggested nothing of the kind. What he suggested was that the charities should defray the expenses which were incurred on their own account—that they should pay the cost of the superintendence exercised by the Charity Commissioners, which was a necessary expense entailed by the accumulation of funds of the charity. The right hon. Gentleman contended that these expenses should be defrayed out of the funds of the charities, and not by the general public. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had mentioned instances in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian and others had proposed to tax charities, sometimes to the extent of 2d. in the pound, and sometimes to other amounts, and when they remembered the enormous value of charities in the country they would see that the amount proposed would be of very slight consequence indeed. He did not think they ought to confuse the two points together—the one that the charities should bear the expenses of their own management, and the other that they should take their share in the expense of the general administration of the country. He was sorry the attention of the Committee should have been distracted by the observations of the hon. Member for the Penrith Division of Cumberland (Mr. J. W. Lowther) from the criticisms made by a preceding speaker. They ought to think of the misery which existed in this country precisely for want of the assistance which might be given from funds in the hands of the Charity Commissioners. Why were the inhabitants of very poor and squalid districts in London to wait until great people subscribed large amounts of money to meet the advances of the Charity Commissioners? The money held by that Body was not given for the promotion of generosity on the part of the rich. The business of the Charity Commissioners was to look after the poor, whether the living generation of the rich did so or not. Of course, if they could succeed in persuading rich men generally to put down £1 for every £1 the Commissioners expended it would be all very well; but it was very hard on squalid and poverty-
    128
    stricken neighbourhoods to withhold funds from them simply because the rich and the aristocratic could not be induced to feel an interest in the proposed benefaction. And now he came to the question of the choice of Governors. The hon. Member had told them that in the case of denominational institutions the Commissioners took pains to inquire into the denominational relations of the Governors whom they appointed, and he added that, in the case of undenominational institutions they did not think it necessary to make any such inquiry. He contended that this was an altogether false idea of their duty. How were they to guarantee that an institution should be maintained on an undenominational footing unless they adopted a similar procedure to that adopted in the case of denominational institutions? Take the case of a Church of England institution. How could they secure its management in accordance with the tenets of the Church of England except by appointing on its management gentlemen who were members of the Church of England? Did not the same principle apply to all undenominational institutions? Then, surely it was the duty of the Commissioners to see that undenominational institutions were placed on the same footing, and that was to be secured obviously by taking industrious care that the members of the Governing Body should not be of one denomination, and for this purpose they were bound to inquire into the denominational views of the gentlemen it was proposed to appoint as Governors. How had the Commission sought to secure undenominational management in a notorious case? The Archbishop of Canterbury, Bishops, the Chancellor of a Diocese, and prominent members of the Church of England, famous for their donations to that institution, had been appointed on the Governing Body! "But," said the Charity Commissioners, "we have not inquired into their denomination views." Surely inquiry was not necessary; their views were known to all the world; they were known as prominent members of the Establishment of the Church of England? Now, in that matter, the Charity Commissioners had taken an entirely false view of their duties. They were bound to be as careful to preserve the undenominational character of an institution as of a de-

    129
    nominational one, and he hoped that in future they would bear that fact in mind.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he wished to call the attention of the hon. Member opposite to the case of the Huguenot Charity in London, in connection with which there were separate funds for a school and for a church. In 1867, the charity was administered under a scheme approved by the Court of Chancery, and the scheme was revised by the Charity Commissioners in 1876. It was now sought to re-organize the scheme so far as the schools were concerned. The schools were not simply Huguenot schools, for English persons sent their children there in order to learn French. He believed that the present object was to have exhibitions. Well, he was not particularly opposed to that. But in this case the scheme was prepared by the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) and not by the Charity Commissioners. There was a sum distributed between the Consistory Trustees and the pastor of the Church, and consequently the hon. and learned Attorney General was now formulating a scheme, which, so far as he could make it out, was not to be submitted to the Charity Commissioners or to the House of Commons. There was a considerable sum of money involved. The church had an income of £730 per annum. Well, the church, which was situated at St. Martin's-le-Grand, was required for some extensions of the Post Office, and it was consequently bought for a sum of £25,000. The accumulated funds brought the total up to £27,000, in addition to the income of £730 yearly from other sources. What was to be done with the money? Was a new church to be built with it? He did not believe one was required. There were, of course, Huguenot descendents in London; he was one himself, but he had never been to the church, and he believed most of the Huguenot descendants were in a similar position. It was a matter of fact that the poor fund was used in order to induce persons to go there and receive doles. The pastor had a salary of £500 a-year, and he was appointed by the Consistory, who, in turn, were appointed by him. It did seem that when the new scheme was propounded, it would be most undesirable
    130
    that the £27,000 in hand should be devoted to building a new church, which was not wanted. The money was invested in Consols, and produced £800 yearly, the house property brought in about £750 more, and he believed that the cash might be better and more usefully employed than in building a church. Speaking as a Huguenot, he hoped that the hon. and learned Attorney General would propound a scheme which would make this money available for the temporal use of poor French people in London. If that could not be done without an Act of Parliament, then let him bring one in——
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That is not within the scope of the Charity Commission, and the hon. Member's remarks are, therefore, irrelevant.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought it was a very peculiar case. The Charity Commission referred the matter to the Attorney General, but they could not attack the right hon. Gentleman on the matter when the Vote for his salary was discussed. He had, however, laid his views before the Committee.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, it was true there was a school and a French Protestant Church involved in the charity, but his own duties in the matter were of a very formal character. The church had been pulled down to allow of the extension of the Post Office, but the valuable library of books had been preserved and was being taken care of. The question raised by the hon. Member was as to whether the church should be rebuilt? Well, he had no power to decide that. All he had to do was to prepare a scheme under the direction of the Court of Chancery. It was a very important question whether the money should not be devoted to purposes which came within the scope of the charity; but the whole matter was being carefully considered, and inquiries were being made of those who had a right to be heard. It was quite possible that the field of the charity would be enlarged so as to use the money for better purposes. He had been assured that the practice of giving doles had come to an end, and, at any rate, he would do his best to reduce it to a minimum.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he had to thank

    131
    the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) for the response he made earlier in the debate to an appeal which had been made to him. He wished, however, to make an observation with a view to preventing a misconstruction of his meaning. He had never intended to suggest that the Charity Commission was extravagantly managed. The men at the head of it were distinguished and able, and all he had wished to do was, to point out that there was a tendency to increase the establishment charges on very extensive lines. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had confused the two questions as to the taxation of charities, and then being compelled to contribute to legal expenses, or, so to speak, for the business done for them by the Charity Commissioners. He did not intend to raise the question of the taxation of charities, but he did not see why the general public should subsidize all the charities in the Kingdom by exempting them from taxation which they were so well able to bear; and he would urge that those charities which came to the Court of Chancery for expensive and costly legal proceedings in order to secure and protect their funds, should contribute to the cost of the proceedings, and not make them a burden on the public. He fully appreciated all that had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he was very much inclined to the idea that charities might pay for legal work done by the Charity Commissioners by fees, in the shape of stamps, at each successive stage. That was a matter, however, which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury would have to decide.
    MR. HALLEY STEWARTsaid, he had had on several occasions to bring questions regarding Lincolnshire trusts before the Charity Commissioners, and he had always met with extreme courtesy. It was, therefore, with some reluctance that he took advantage of his position in that House to press a particular matter upon them. In the matter of the Swineshead Charities, which were under the direction of the Commissioners, there was a new scheme under which two trustees were to be elected by the ratepayers. Now, the Vicar of Swines-
    132
    head had set at nought and defied the opinion of the trustees, that the election should be by ballot if the ratepayers so resolved. He (Mr. Halley Stewart) was glad to say that the Charity Commissioners had refused to endorse the high handed proceedings of the vicar, who, after first refusing to hold a meeting in conformity with the terms of the trust, had now fixed it at the hour of 10 in the morning, so that the labourers could not, without great difficulty, be present. The labourers had remonstrated with the reverend gentleman, but he refused to alter the hour. They then sent a letter to him (Mr. Halley Stewart), and he waited on the Charity Commissioners, who wrote down to the vicar, pointing out that the Commissioners always fixed an hour in the evening for inquiries on village charities, and expressing a hope that he would follow suit. But the Vicar of Swineshead refused to follow that advice; he defied the wishes both of the Charity Commissioners and the parishioners, and refused to hold the meeting in the evening. The result was that the labourers were altogether outnumbered, the resolution carried at the previous meeting was reversed, the trustees then elected were not again chosen, and a great state of turmoil was caused in the village. He would not ask the Charity Commissioners to re-open the question, but he would ask them to bear in mind in the future that the labourers felt that they were only safe in the hands of the Commissioners, and not to place vicars and other trustees in a position to disregard the feelings of those most interested in a charity and the directions of the Commissioners.
    MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, he fully appreciated the spirit in which the hon. Member had made his remarks. It was the custom of the Charity Commissioners to try and arrange for meetings of the character described to be held in the evening. He did not think they had any absolute power to compel it to be done.
    SIR JOHN SWINBURNEsaid, they had been given to understand it was the desire of the Charity Commissioners that labourers should be enabled to attend charity meetings, and that elections of trustees should be by ballot. He held in his hand a scheme for certain charities in the County of Staffordshire. The

    133
    scheme was promulgated a month since, and it provided that the trustees should be elected in one case—that of Colwich—in vestry assembled. Now it was quite impossible for labourers to attend those vestry meetings, and in such cases the elections were not made by ballot.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the Vote had occupied a long time, and he was unwilling to start a debate which might occupy a still longer period. But he did not like to pass by one part of the Vote without a protest. He alluded to the expenses of the Endowed Schools Commission, which sometimes through actual mismanagement did a great deal of harm. They had an instance of that brought before the House on the preceding Monday, when the majority in favour of the Endowed Schools Commission, although backed up by the Government, was not large. In the system of open competition it meant expensive preparation and cramming the rich at a great advantage over the poor, and endowments which were originally intended for the poor in this way got into the hands of people whom it was never intended should enjoy them. He would not move an Amendment to reduce the salaries of the Endowed Schools Commissioners as he had intended to, if the Vote had come on earlier, but he must say he believed the Commissioners, in the line of conduct they were adopting, were doing what was contrary to the wishes of the founders of the endowments by diverting them from objects beneficial to the poorest members of the community.
    Vote agreed to.
    (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £26,477, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1889, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Civil Service Commission."
    MR. CRAIG-SELLARsaid, that in moving the reduction of the salaries of the Civil Service Commissioners by £400, he had no wish to occupy the time of the House by going into a discussion as to the general policy of the Civil Service Commissioners, nor would suggest any reflection on the manner in which their business was conducted generally. He believed the
    134
    right hon Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) had some interesting observations to make in regard to the examinations conducted by Examiners under the Commissioners; but he (Mr. Craig-Sellar) intended on this occasion to confine himself to a single point, which he had already brought before the notice of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) by a Question which he had put from his place. He had now brought it before the Committee, because it was a real grievance, and because he thought that before they granted this Supply they ought to have an assurance from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury that some steps would be taken to redress the grievance. The case arose in this way. At the recent examination for the Sandhurst Military College, conducted at the beginning of this month, there were a number of candidates who came up for examination, and on the last day of that examination a mathematical paper was set which contained a large number of questions, one of which was simply insoluble. He did not propose to mystify the House or himself by entering into details with regard to this question which was insoluble, but if the Committee would allow him he would read it, as it happened to be a very short one, and as it would make the point he wished to put more clear. It read thus—
    "A number consists of three digits in geometrical progression. The sum of the right hand and left hand digits exceeds the middle digit by unity, and the sum of the left hand and middle digits is two-thirds of the sum of the middle and right hand digits. Find the number."
    Well, it was impossible, as he understood it, to "find the number," because the number did not exist. Instead of "exceeds the middle digit by unity," it should have been "exceeds twice the middle digit by unity." This makes the question reasonable, and the answer then becomes 469. It was obvious that the mistake in the question was an accident, and he was informed that it occurred in this way—and if he saw that he was right in this, he thought it as well to mention it in this public manner, so that Examiners who set questions in the future would be more careful in these matters—he believed it arose in this way, that the gentleman who set the

    135
    examination paper worked out the question accurately in the draft, but in copying the question from the rough paper to the paper to be sent to the printer he omitted the word "twice." If he (Mr. Craig-Sellar) were wrong, he would, no doubt, be corrected by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. But it certainly seemed to him very hard that such a question should have been submitted to 400 students brought up for examination. Examiners were appointed to find out the mistakes of the candidates, and not candidates to find out the mistakes of the Examiners. The paper was a three hours' paper, and he was informed that some of the candidates occupied as much, variously, as an hour, half-an-hour, and a quarter of an hour in the attempt to solve this veritable task of Sisyphus, for the task of Sisyphus was an insoluble problem. They all knew how exhausting the process of answering these examination papers was, and how to some lads the prospect before the examination and the anxiety afterwards affected seriously the nervous system; athough, of course, now-a-days there were some young men—and some young women, too—who became accustomed to examinations, like the eel, in the hands of the skilful, which got used to being skinned. But there were always some boys of a nervous temperament, who might become excellent Civil servants if their examination were conducted properly, to whom it was almost impossible to pass an examination if anything went wrong. When such questions as that to which he had referred were put in the papers such boys were likely to lose their heads, and become incapable of good work, and the result might be that they would lose their chance of appointment. What did the Commissioners do under the circumstances he had now narrated? There were many things they might have done, but, in his opinion, they did everything they ought not to have done. The examination concluded on Tuesday at 1 o'clock, and it was well known at that time that this insoluble problem had been set. The natural thing to do would have been to inform the candidates that the paper was a wrong one, that it would be cancelled, and that they should return again on the following day to another paper. Nothing of the kind was done, however, and these 408
    136
    boys went away—some to Scotland, some to Ireland, some to far-off parts of Eng land, some even to the Continent—but on the Saturday they were called back again with not one word of regret or apology from those responsible for the mistake, and set down in the ordinary way to do another paper. There were 408 of the lads present at the first examination, and 397 of them returned. Thus it would be seen that 11 did not return; and what happened to them, and what marks they got for their papers, no one could tell. It seemed to him (Mr. Craig Sellar) that something should be done for these candidates. The Treasury, he thought, should find some means by which some alleviation might be made to the parents of these lads, who must have been put to considerable expense in taking them home and sending them up once more for examination. He might be told that what had occurred was an accident, and that accidents would happen in the best regulated examinations. That might be so, but this was not a solitary instance. On three previous occasions there had been faulty papers, and different things had been done to put matters right. To his mind, when a Body like the Civil Service Commissioners were vested with great powers as those they possessed, they ought to be above all suspicion of inaccuracy. All confidence in the Civil Service Commissioners and in the examinations was lost when it was found that faulty examination papers were presented. Of course, the Treasury could not make good any hypothetical loss that might have fallen on the lads; but there was something the Treasury could do—something practicable—and that was simply to pay the expenses of the lads, whatever it might be, who had come up from distant parts of the country and from the Continent to pass through the second examination. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had told them, the day before yesterday, that this would be an evil precedent, and that awkward questions might arise if the Treasury were to take that step. That might be very true from the Treasury point of view, but the hon. Member should recollect that the parents of many of these lads were not well off, and that it was not for them to consider whether or not an evil precedent had been set. The question

    137
    to them was, how were they to be recouped for the expense to which they had been put through the fault of the Examiners? He trusted the hon Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to give him an assurance that something of the kind that he suggested would be done. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £400.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, £15,757, for Salaries, be reduced by the sum of £400."—(Mr. Craig-Sellar.)
    MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, it would save the time of the Committee if, instead of moving the Motion he had put on the Paper, he took this opportunity of saying what he had to say, and one Division would answer very well for the two questions which were raised—if, indeed, a Division became necessary at all. The statement they had heard from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down on this case was really a portion of the case which he (Mr. Marjoribanks) desired to bring before the notice of the Committee. It was what he might call a culminating error, which seemed to show that dementia had fallen on the Civil Service Commissioners which preceded their ultimate destruction. He did not quite agree with his hon. Friend as to the step which should be taken by the Civil Service Commissioners. It seemed to him to have been a monstrous thing to bring these boys back again at all. The very least that might have been expected was that full marks should have been given according to the answers to the other questions on the paper, omitting altogether answers to the wrongfully set question. He did not say that would altogether meet the grievance, because, no doubt, a great many of the boys would have wasted a lot of time over the wrongly set question. But this instance the hon. Gentleman had adduced was by no means a single one of the mistakes that occurred in the examination papers. If this were only a single instance it might be passed over; but it was not an unusual occurrence, for mathematical papers were often found to be faulty, and the subject of remark against those entrusted with the preparation of them. The Committee would hardly believe that in the month of June just passed there had been no less than three separate
    138
    cases of mistakes in examination papers—important mathematical mistakes in the examinations under the Civil Service Commissioners. There was the mistake in the Sandhurst paper, to which reference had been made by his hon. Friend. Then there was a case in connection with the Indian Civil Service Examination of a paper set by Mr. Besant—Question No. 6. It was a misprint, but still it was a misprint most awkward for the unfortunate students. It was a case in which s (½ the sum of sides) was printed for "A"—that is, "Angle A." The misprint made the question simply nonsense, and was like asking the boy to add apples and oranges together and express the result in figs. No doubt, the error was not Mr. Besant's fault; but someone ought to be responsible—it should have been someone's duty to look over the proof of the paper. But a still worse error had occurred in the paper set at the same examination by the Rev. E. Ledger. The last half of Question 14 was simply nonsense, and he (Mr. Marjoribanks) had the opinion of three different gentlemen with regard to it. First, there was the opinion of the Examiner of Cambridge for 1887, who said—"The question contains an undoubted fallacy." Then there was the opinion of a Senior Wrangler and Smith's Prizeman, who said—"The question is absurdly and flagrantly wrong." And, thirdly, he had the opinion of a Second Wrangler, and Tutor of his College, who said—"The question is certainly wrong—the examiner made the imperfectly illogical conclusion that "S 2n = Sn." Here they had three cases of errors in Mathematical papers occurring within a single month, and there were other cases of a similar kind, not only in Mathematical papers, but in other papers. He was also prepared to bring forward other instances, if necessary, to show gross incompetency on the part of the Examiners. He knew of a case in which Bacon's Essays were set as a subject for examination, and the Examiner instead of examining on the essays generally, put questions relating to matter which was only to be found in the appendix of one particular edition—Whateley's. Then there was the case of an Examiner in Italian who asked the boys to reply to him in French or some other language, when before him for vivâ voce examination. In the Indian Civil Service for 1884, the following was set for an

    139
    essay:—Il tremuoto del 22 nd Aprili nel comitato di Essex. It was intended that the essay to be written in Italian should be on the earthquake which took place in Essex a few years ago. Well, "tremuoto" was not modern Italian for an earthquake, which was "terremoto" but an archaic word which had not been in use for the past 100 years; and comitato was a word which never meant county, the Italian for "county" being contea, or provincia. The literal translation of the Examiner's Italian would be—"An essay on a turbulent fellow or rowdy in the Committee of Essex." Then, as illustrating the errors into which the Examiners fell, there was a case with which he was acquainted in which a boy named Fraser was credited with marks in a subject which he did not take up at all; and another case of a boy named Van Renen, who was stated to have disqualified in geometrical drawing. This was known to have been impossible from what he had done; and after considerable correspondence, the Commissioners admitted themselves wrong and passed him. This was some proof of the gross carelessness of the manner in which Civil Service Examinations were conducted. He could go into a great many more of these cases, but he would not waste the time of the Committee. He must say that in many cases he did not think the Civil Service Commissioners took sufficient pains to satisfy themselves as to the qualification of their Examiners. He knew a case in which a man was appointed as Examiner when he had been turned away from a public school, a fact which the Civil Service Commissioners would have been informed of if they had applied to the school the person had been connected with. He knew of a case, again, in which the Examiner put to each candidate the question—"Who was your coach?" Meaning who had been engaged to cram him for the examination, and it was to be feared that the marks had been arranged according to the answers received to this question. Then the rooms used for the examination were often badly situated. In one case in June of the present year, the room in which an Army Preliminary Examination took place was in the City, close to a line where railway trains were passing every two or three minutes. On another
    140
    occasion the examination was carried on in a building in which a concert was carried on overhead during part of the time. The applause of the listeners was, of course, a pleasing variety, but it added to the difficulty of the examination. In another case the roof of the building was being repaired, a circumstance which could not be held to contribute to the quiet consideration of the papers. But he did not wish to rest on one particular case. He only wished to say that there was a mass of evidence easily to be got at by anyone who cared to take the trouble, to show that the examinations were not carried on in a way to secure the confidence of those who went to be examined. This was a question which came home to all of them, for most of them had undergone examinations themselves, and some of them had sons or brothers who had yet to be examined. These examinations were a necessary part of our present system, and it was only fair that they should require that the examinations should be carried on under the most strict superintendence by the very best examiners, and on the very best system, in order that real justice might be meted out to the examinees. What he claimed was, that they should have an inquiry into the subject. He would urge upon the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to grant an inquiry into the manner in which the Civil Service Commissioners carried on the examinations under their charge, and he thought that such inquiry should either be conducted by a Select Committee of the House, or by a Royal Commission. The subject was one which they had a right to demand should be inquired into, and he trusted that the answer the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would give would be such as would obviate the necessity of their voting in favour of the Motion to reduce the vote, which they certainly should do if the answer were not satisfactory.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, that one of the most startling cases as showing the faulty character of the present system of examination, was one which had not been mentioned, although it had been brought under his observation. It was the case of a boy who had undergone an examination and been refused, and had afterwards gone to a

    141
    public tutor, who examined him and said he was convinced that there must have been some mistake. The tutor had gone to the Civil Service Commissioners and remonstrated, but they had refused to listen to him. The father of the boy made a similar application to the Commissioners, but again they refused to listen. But the tutor, who was a man of some renown, again went before them, declaring "There must be some mistake, and it is only fair that you should examine into the papers and have them scrutinized." The Commissioners did so, and what was the result? Why, under the pressure brought to bear upon them, after three months' trouble and worry, the papers were searched, and it was found that a simple sum of addition necessary to add up the number of marks given to this candidate had been done wrongly—a mistake of 200 had been made, and the boy, instead of having failed, had passed more than half way up the list. He would not go into other cases; but he thought this gave a very serious estimate of the way in which their work was carried out by the Examiners. This was a serious matter inasmuch as the work of the Civil Service Commissioners had, at the present time, a much greater effect upon the education of this country than any scholastic Body, if he might so call them, in the three Kingdoms. A very large number of candidates passed through their hands every year when they came up for examination. Tutors and masters were obliged to conform to the demands of the Commissioners, and the system was a system of cram, pure and simple. The fault did not lie with those who carried out, but on those who constituted, the policy which regulated the examinations. There was no grouping of subjects, no method by which the candidates were examined for the kind of work they had to do. Take, for example, the candidates for the Civil Service in India. Now, in India, of all other places, a knowledge of history was most important, and ought to receive the largest number of marks for the Civil Service, but all that was given to it was 300. Now, a candidate coming up had to obtain a certain number of marks before he could pass, but he could make up those marks by bringing in outside subjects, which, for the purpose of the work he was going to do, were absolutely use-
    142
    less subjects. A candidate for the Civil Service of India who read up history could get 300 marks. He might have studied thoroughly, or simply so as to enable him to answer questions, but under any circumstances he could only get 300 marks, and under the system of official crams, of fixing certain dates and broad facts in history, in a student's mind, he could get just the same number of marks as the best historian, while he could make up any deficiency in historical knowledge by bringing up Italian. Well, for a man going out to the Indian Civil Service, Italian was about the most useless subject he could take up. Yet a candidate who made up for his want of historical knowledge with a little Italian could get as many marks as a candidate who had studied, not only the history of the world at large, but more especially the interesting history of India. Then, let them see how examinations were conducted. A single Examiner sat for a single subject. There was no intercommunication between the Examiners. It was a rule-of-three sum. A certain number of questions were given. If they were correctly answered the candidate was held to be qualified for the Civil Service, no matter what he knew of other subjects. A rule was set before the Examiner by which he gave so many marks. When the papers came in from the candidates there was no intercommunication between the Examiners, and the estimate of the Examiner depended to a large extent upon his own particular fads on historical subjects. Take, for instance, questions as to Queen Elizabeth. Some historians held exactly the reverse views as to the character of that Sovereign. A candidate, perhaps, gave answers in opposition to the particular view accepted by his Examiner, and although he might support it by historical research, it would be held that he had answered wrongly in accordance with mathematic rules, and he would lose marks accordingly. [An hon. MEMBER: No!] An hon. Member says "No!" but he (Mr. Molloy) could give an instance in which a candidate had absolutely lost marks by taking that course. Now, the system of examination either was correct or it was not. If it were correct, then the system which obtained at every one of the Universities was wrong. At every University the questions were set

    143
    by a Body of Examiners—two, three, or four, and when the papers came in, the Examiners sat separately first; they each looked through every paper, each placed his estimate upon it, and these estimates sometimes differed as much as from 50 to 300 marks. That showed what a difficulty there was for a single Examiner to carry out the work. After that the examiners sat together and discussed the paper, so that each paper got the benefit of the opinion of the full Board of Examiners. Thus the two systems of examination were exactly reversed, and either the University system was absolutely wrong from beginning to end, or else the Civil Service system was wrong. He ventured to think that the University system produced the best class of Civil servants, and it certainly produced the best class of men, because the system, as they had it now under the Civil Service, was purely and simply a system of cram, and nothing else. He knew from personal experience that that was the case. Let them take the question of literature, which formed part of the examination for Civil Service candidates. That was a subject which ought to be thoroughly understood, especially by candidates going in for the higher grades, yet the examination was conducted on a system of rule in answering certain questions which had been laid down by the crammers. It was merely a system of learning answers to a certain set of questions. As a matter of fact, many of those who passed in literature had never read the books with which they were supposed to be acquainted, and had certainly obtained the knowledge they possessed from books published by crammers. He had pointed out that either the University system or the Civil Service system was wrong. He had pointed out further that the Civil Service had now, and would have in an increasing degree in the future, a greater effect on the general education of this country than either the Universities or schools. The question was one of very great importance. The suggestions on minor points made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) he (Mr. Molloy) thought deserved support, and he hoped the whole question would have the attention of the Government, in whose hands rested the decision of the matter.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he had already stated in the House, in answer to Questions, he was extremely sorry that mistakes should have occurred in the examination papers. The hon. Member for the Partick Division of Lanarkshire (Mr. Craig-Sellar) had pointed out that, in his opinion, the Government ought to pay the expenses of candidates who suffered by the mistakes. As he (Mr. Jackson) had pointed out, that would be a very bad precedent to set. It was all very well to expect perfection, and no doubt it was desirable to have it; but it was not so easy to get it. He thought, however, he could go to the length of saying that every precaution should be taken against errors in future, every possible check should be applied so as to make impossible a repetition of these mistakes, and he was sure the Examiners themselves desired to secure that end. He thought he might venture to say with the general concurrence of the Members of the House that the Civil Service Examiners had always shown impartiality in their discharge of the duties attaching to their high position, and he believed he was justified in claiming for them—and he thought it would be in the interests of the candidates, of the Civil Service, and of the country generally—that as far as possible they should occupy, not only an impartial, but also an independent position. He was not in any sense attempting to excuse what had happened. He believed that if the Examiners were there to speak for themselves they would express their regret just as he was expressing it for them, but every precaution would be taken in the future, and he believed that the precautions to be taken would make it practically impossible for the mistakes to occur again. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) had mentioned several cases, and had adduced an amount of evidence which deserved to be carefully inquired into, and if the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to furnish him with particulars of his statement, he would take care that they were most carefully and most thoroughly inquired into, and that the most complete answer possible should be given to all the charges. The right hon. Gentleman complained about

    145
    the room in which some of the examinations were held; but he would point out, in the first place, that the Civil Service Commissioners were not responsible for that. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) was more or less responsible for finding the rooms for the examination, and he knew from conversation with the right hon. Gentleman how difficult it was at the particular time when the rooms were wanted to get them desirably situated. Only last year £4,000 was spent in providing examination rooms. Another complaint which had been made was that the Examiners asked the boys who had been their tutors. Well, he was informed that that practice had been stopped, and orders had been given absolutely preventing such a question being put. The right hon. Gentleman had further asked for an assurance that the expenses would be paid of the boys who suffered from the mistakes in the examination papers. Well, he thought it would be extremely unwise on the part of the House to adopt such a precedent, and he did not like to hold out any false hopes; but from figures which had been supplied he found that the proportion of boys brought from out districts was comparatively small, and he believed that they were really put to no expense. He would, however, promise to make inquiries and see what it was possible to do in the matter. He could only again express his regret that the mistake had occurred.
    MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he did not disapprove of the action of the Civil Service Commissioners, nor did he agree that great fault should be found with the character of their examinations as compared with the University examinations. There were, no doubt, faults in the system of examination, but they would always find persons who were not able in examinations to realize the whole advantage to be gained from a large knowledge of any particular subject. He had to say with respect to Civil Service Examinations, of which he had had experience, that he did not believe they gave rise to indiscriminate cramming; and he further believed that the most successful candidate in these examinations was the man who had been best taught. The crammers recognized that fact. He did not share
    146
    in the general attack which had been made on the Civil Service Commission. He gathered from what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire said, that there had recently been a considerable number of cases in which one could find a good deal to amuse himself with; but in all examinations they would find a number of cases of individual absurdity. He therefore wished to urge upon the House, and upon those who had taken part in the debate, that they should not allow themselves to judge of the merits of Civil Service examinations by isolated and selected cases, and he could bear personal testimony to the general efficiency of those examinations. He gathered that a considerable amount of dissatisfaction had been expressed at the Civil Service Examination because only one Examiner looked over one set of papers; but in the days when he was acquainted with the Cambridge Mathematical Tripos Examinations, every paper was only looked over by one Examiner. He mentioned that to say that whatever might be the practice of the Civil Service Examiners, it was not necessarily a bad or an erroneous practice. But he wished to find fault with the constitution of the Civil Service Commission, which had suffered since the death of Mr. Theodore Walrond—a gentleman of large experience and wide capabilities. There was at present no Commissioner who had any real and adequate knowledge of the mathematical and scientific branches of the examination. Attention was called to that at the time of the vacancy occurring, and the First Lord of the Treasury, who was naturally not particularly acquainted with the characteristics of the examination, replied that it was not necessary that the Commissioners themselves should be able to examine in every subject to be examined in. He remembered that that reply which was given with a certain amount of good humour, was received with many cheers on the opposite side of the House. Now, they did not insist, nor did they desire, that the Commissioners should be able to examine in all classes of subjects that might come before them; but he did say, that they were in great danger of a repetition of errors in the examination papers—such as had been described by his hon. Friend the Member for the Partick Division of Lanarkshire (Mr.

    147
    Craig-Sellar), if they did not have among the Commissioners who were ultimately responsible for the matter some one who was acquainted with the mathematical and scientific branches of education. That portion of knowledge was absent from among the present Commissioners. He would find no fault with those gentlemen or with the selection of them; but he would urge strongly on the Government to take into consideration the point he had urged in any new appointment, or in any reconstruction of the Commission, and on their appointment to pay more attention to the necessity of selecting men with some amount of technical knowledge on the matter.
    CAPTAIN SELWYNsaid, that as one who had recently passed an examination, he might perhaps be allowed to say that he noted with pleasure the promise of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) that every precaution should in the future be taken to avoid mistakes in the examination papers. He would like to point out one way in which the mistakes might be avoided. Somebody competent to do the paper should be in the room while the examination was proceeding. When an officer in the Army went through his examination, the Garrison Instructor worked out the papers, and he was present and able at once to say whether or not the questions were accurately set. If a similar course were adopted in the examinations for the Civil Service, he believed a great many mistakes would be avoided.
    MR. LAWSONsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury for some information as to the present composition of the Board of Commissioners. He believed there were two paid and one honorary Commissioners; but the honorary Commissioner—Lord Strafford, it was said, in consequence of some evidence given before the Royal Commission, had resigned. Was it the intention of the Government to fill up the vacancy or not? If so, when was it likely to be done? At present, of course, there were only two Commissioners, although it might be the number was quite sufficient for the work that had to be done.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, it was the intention
    148
    of the Government to fill up the appointment if a suitable person could be found; but it was purely honorary, and involved considerable responsibility and labour. The hon. and gallant Member would understand, therefore, that it was a matter of some difficulty to find a person qualified to hold the position. He heard with great interest the observations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hoxton Division of Shoreditch (Mr. James Stuart), and he could assure him they would receive careful attention from the Government. He had also listened with considerable interest to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks), and if he would furnish the Government with the details which he had stated to the House, they should be carefully inquired into, and steps taken to prevent a repetition of the matters complained of. The Commissioners discharged their duties under an Act of Parliament, and, although mistakes were sometimes made, and singular questions asked by the Examiners, he could tell the hon. Member for the Hoxton Division of Shoreditch every matter was carefully sifted. They felt that that was a question which deserved consideration and examination; but, at the same time, he would ask the House of Commons not to interfere too strongly with a Committee which had hitherto discharged its duty with great sense of responsibility to the public, which was established by Act of Parliament, and with which it would not be desirable that the Executive Government of the country should interfere. If the Executive Government did interfere too frequently with a Body which ought to be, as nearly as possible, independent, it would do a great deal of harm.
    SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEsaid, he desired to say one word with reference to the criticism of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Shoreditch Division of Hoxton as to the appointment of Gentlemen upon the Civil Service Commission. The hon. Gentleman complained that the last appointment to the Civil Service Commission was of a Gentleman who had not been distinguished in any way as a mathematician, and that there was no mathematician at present amongst the Members of the Commission. The hon. Member had gone on to imply some-

    149
    how that to that fact was to be attributed those remarkable and deplorable mistakes which had taken place in the mathematical papers to which the attention of the Committee had been drawn that night. How on earth could the constitution of the Commission bear upon a mistake made in the papers of the Mathematical Examiner at Sandhurst? He (Sir Roper Lethbridge) himself had been a University Examiner for many years. He had also examined for the Army and for the Civil Service, and was, therefore, thoroughly acquainted with the details of the subject, and he could say, without fear of contradiction, that the mistakes to which attention had been drawn were simply the fault of the Examiners, and were in no way due to the system of examination or the method of control exercised over the Examiners. It was most unfortunate that such errors should creep into the questions, and, for his own part, he could not understand how papers containing such errors were ever allowed to be distributed to the candidates. It had always been his endeavour, wherever he had been examining, most carefully to look through the printed papers of questions before any copy was given forth. That precaution evidently had not been taken by the Examiners in the cases referred to, and he thought that those persons deserved severe censure for their neglect. The painful result of the error had been clearly described by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Craig-Sellar), who first spoke on this question; but he (Sir Roper Lethbridge) would add another point for the consideration of the Committee. It would be in the power of any one of the candidates who failed in these papers, to say that his failure was due to the fault not of himself, but of the Examiner, and of the system of examination. Now, that was a very serious matter when they considered how entirely our system of appointment to the Army and the Civil Service and other Public Departments depended on the examination. He would, therefore, venture to repeat that it was on the Examiners that the fault lay, and that they should be visited with censure; and that it was not the fault of the Commissioners. Therefore, he would pass the Vote, and would appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite not to cast blame on the
    150
    Commissioners, with whom it obviously did not lie.
    MR. CRAIG-SELLARsaid, that with reference to the observations of the hon. Gentleman who had preceded him, it should be stated that the Committee could not hold the Examiners responsible. It could only hold the Commission responsible, and it was for that reason that he had moved the reduction of the Vote. He could not help feeling regret that the assurances of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury were not of a more substantial character, and that there had been no reference made by him, or by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, to the suggestion of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Majoribanks) that the Commission should be inquired into by a Committee of the House. The Commission had now been in existence some years, and it could not but be beneficial to have an inquiry into its operations, say next year. The Committee at least got a promise from the Government, that the different points raised in the discussion—the specific complaints made—would be carefully investigated; and the Secretary to the Treasury had promised them that, in future, the examinations would be more carefully conducted than they had been hitherto. In view of these promises, and, finally, as he had received an assurance that the cases of the candidates who had gone up to the Sandhurst Examination from a distance, and who, through an error in the examination paper, had been obliged, after their return home, to go back for a new examination, would be especially inquired into with a view to the expenses to which their parents had been put being refunded, he thought he might ask the Committee to allow him to withdraw the Amendment. He hoped he should be allowed, later in the Session, to put a Question to the Secretary to the Treasury as to the manner in which the undertakings of the Government had been, or were being, fulfilled.
    MR. LAWSONsaid, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether, when this question was inquired into, the Government would not consider the propriety of laying down some conditions as to regularity of attendance at the Offices of the Commission to be required of future

    151
    Commissioners? Clearly, it was undesirable to have mere figureheads on such a Commission as this.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, when it became necessary to make any new appointment, they sought to obtain the services of Gentlemen, both competent to perform the duties and capable of giving attention to the duties. The hon. Gentleman might rest assured that no one would be appointed to the Commission who was not thoroughly prepared to perform the duties.
    MR. PICTONsaid, he was astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Partick Division of Lanarkshire express the satisfaction he did at the promises of the Government. As to what had fallen from the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson), it could not be denied that these young men had not only suffered mental torture, but had been put to a certain amount of pecuniary loss, through the negligence of certain officials in the employment of the Commission. Whether the fault lay with the Examiners or the Civil Service Commissioners, he did not think mattered very much. Even if the fault lay with the Examiners, they were in the employment of the Commissioners, and the Commissioners must be held responsible for the faults of their servants, just as masters were held responsible for the faults of their employés in the ordinary businesses of the country. But the question which arose in this case was a much larger one than that of mere pecuniary loss. The circumstances which had been brought to light that evening were simply the culminating absurdity of a very stupid and faulty system. It was ridiculous to suppose that a person's capacity for performing clerical work in a Public Department could be properly tested by requiring him to give satisfactory answers to certain abstruse mathematical questions, or by his capacity for turning English into French, or his knowledge of history. A more rational system of examination was required. And the Examiners too frequently made bad worse by adopting the system of endeavouring to find out not so much what young men knew as what they did not know, and by setting traps and tricks which required some acuteness and knowledge to penetrate. He only hoped that what had taken place that night would induce the Go-
    152
    vernment to give an undertaking to investigate the whole system of Civil Service Examinations.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he desired, before the Vote was taken, to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to kindly explain the last item in it—"Bonuses and Gratuities to Copyists." The item had increased since last year from £6,000 to £10,000. These bonuses were given under a Treasury Minute to certain copyists throughout the Civil Service. The amount of the gratuities was very small, representing only something like 6d. a-week for men who had served over 12 years. The addition which was involved to the salaries of the men did not give them anything like a reasonable amount of pay for the work they were set to do. Many hon. Members would be considerably startled if they knew what were the class of men who had to do with many of the papers which they themselves filled up. In Somerset House, where the declarations with regard to the Income Tax of the largest firms in the country were sent, men very low down in the Civil Service became familiar with the Returns made by Members of that House—Returns displaying the whole of their private pecuniary affairs. Men who were paid at the rate of 10 d. an hour possessed information and dealt with papers which persons unacquainted with these matters would very properly expect only those having immediate relations with Secretaries of State were in possession of. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman on Civil Service Establishments was not in the House, because he had accompanied him (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) to one of the large Departments where a number of copyists were employed. This was what they found. In one Department, where many men had, apparently, very little work to do, though they were receiving many hundreds of pounds a-year, they found one copyist in receipt of 10 d. an hour who had for eight successive years been in possession of a confidential register, in which he had, with his own hand, noted down a précis of all the correspondence and information in the possession of the Secretary of State with regard to the

    153
    advance of the Russians in Central Asia. There were important secret administrative and military papers all handed to this unfortunate copyist, who, slave as he might, had absolutely no title to pension, and only a miserable allowance of leave—who was only one of the waifs and strays of the Office, except for his ability and integrity, which singled him out for speedy recognition in the Office. There were men not worth one-half so much as this man, who were receiving many hundreds of pounds a-year. In another room men were at work, and of these one only was a clerk upon the Establishment; all were engaged upon absolutely the same work, but the Establishment clerk received more pay for himself than the four others received altogether; he also had two months' leave of absence, the others had that period of holidays altogether; he was entitled to a handsome pension, they could claim no pension at all. Copyists were set to do work the value of which, when performed by others, was recognized and fairly paid for. Because a man was trustworthy, and had shown himself capable, he was compelled to do this work from fear of being turned out from his means of livelihood. Such men dared not refuse work, although they knew that in others payment for the same work was reckoned by hundreds of pounds. If they refused they must go. It was held out to them, when they undertook work at the lower rate of payment, that their work was of merely a mechanical nature; but faith was broken with them, and they were set to work which, in others, was paid for at the rate of ten times the remuneration they received. The amount of bonuses had been raised from £6,000 to £10,000, and he would be glad if the Secretary to the Treasury would say what that increase meant. Was it due to alterations by the scheme proposed two years ago, when the hon. Gentleman admitted the matter required looking into, and promised to inform him of the result, though he had never heard of it? He would now ask what the policy of the Treasury was as regarded these copyists generally, how many were in the Service, and what would be their future terms of employment?
    MR. JACKSONsaid, he thought the hon. Member in his speech, as on a former occasion, had misapprehended
    154
    altogether what had been done. The hon. Member had spoken again of the bonus given to copyists as equivalent to 6d. a-week, and for that bonus they were required to do important work. If he (Mr. Jackson) rightly gathered the drift of the hon. Member's remarks, he was under the impression the bonus to copyists was 6d. a-week. If that was so, he (Mr. Jackson) was glad to be able to clear away the misapprehention.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: No; I said at the rate of 6d. a-week.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, that was very nearly saying the same thing. But he could explain in a moment the reason why the sum had been increased for bonuses and gratuities. It was due to two causes. Under the system by which bonuses were given to copyists who had served 12 years, the bonuses were cumulative, so that a man who was entitled to 6d. a-week in the first year, got 1s. a-week in the second year, 1s. 6d. in the third year, and so he went on. That accounted for part of the increase. The other portion was due to gratuities, though, on the whole, he believed these were showing rather a tendency to diminish than to increase. The amount paid, he believed, in gratuities since the date of the Treasury Minute, since March 31st last, was £6,638, and the total extra charge since December, 1886, to March 31 was £12,335. On the whole, he believed that the case of the copyists had been fairly met. He did not, for a moment, desire to say anything to create an impression that it had been liberally met; but he would point out that there was a little misconception as to the amount that copyists earned. It was frequently said in the House that they worked for 10 d. an hour; but the Committee should understand that although it might be true to say that their rate of pay was at 10 d. an hour, it must not be supposed that that sum was the whole of the money they received, because a considerable number of these copyists were engaged upon piecework, and some of them were receiving, he was glad to say, considerably more than what 10 d. an hour for an ordinary working day of eight hours would represent. He had had an investigation made, and he found, when he came to inquire into the facts, that really their position was not quite so bad as it was sometimes said to be. He found the amounts they

    155
    had been receiving ranged from £80 to £200 a-year, and one curious fact was brought to notice, that when a copyist was on one occasion selected for promotion from that class—that of a Lower Division clerk—he declined the promotion, because it would involve a loss in his earnings.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Because he would be placed at the very bottom of the class.
    MR. JACKSON: Because, naturally, he would be required to comply with the rules of the Service, and must begin at the bottom of the class. Obviously, it would be unfair to sanction the transfer of a man who had not passed an examination, and put him over the heads of those who had, and who had worked for a number of years in the lower grades. But he hoped the Committee would now allow the Vote to be taken. He thought he was justified in saying he was not putting it too strongly when he said he believed the copyists contained among them a great number of men who did very good work, who made excellent public servants, and of whom he wished to speak in the highest terms, and though they were not too highly paid, he believed their case had been fairly met.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, how many were in the Service?
    MR. JACKSONsaid, about 1,200.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: £10,000 among 1,200?
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £6,210, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1889, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Land Commissioners for England, and for defraying the repayable Expenses to be incurred in matters of Inclosure and Land Improvement, and under 'The Extraordinary Tithe Redemption Act, 1886.'"
    MR. HENRY FOWLERsaid, he did not quite understand the accounts given which went to show the general expenses of the Commission, and the estimated amounts received back again; but he thought there would be no difference of opinion that this Land Commission ought not to cost the general taxpayer of the country a penny. The Commis-
    156
    sioners carried on a business which was practically for the benefit of landowners only; they conducted exchanges principally, and a variety of other conveyancing work; and he maintained that they should charge fees on such a scale as would make the Office self-supporting. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) could say how the figures worked out; it seemed to him that the cost to the country was £10,000 a-year?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he thought the calculation of the right hon. Gentleman was correct. The expenses repayable were rather larger last year and this year, in consequence of the larger amount of work done in connection with the Act passed in 1886 with regard to the Extraordinary Tithe redemption. Of course the Commissioners were very anxious that the work should be done as promptly as possible, and, therefore, the amount expected to come in course of payment this year was larger than the amount usually expended, and included a portion of the expenditure for last year. It might be said that the net cost was about £11,000. He did not consider that his right hon. Friend held similar views in regard to this Commission to those he had expressed in reference to the Charity Commission. He had not neglected inquiring as to whether, by increase of fees or additional charges, this Land Commission might be made entirely self-supporting; and was not without hope that something might be done in that direction.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it was obvious that the Commission could be made self-supporting by its fees; it was merely a business arrangement to make the fees cover the whole expenditure. It was a Department conducted for the benefit of the landowners; and why were those who were not landowners to pay a share of the expenses? Let those pay the expenses who derived benefit from the Department, and if nobody derived any benefit, let the Department be done away with; but in the name of goodness do not put upon the general public a charge for the benefit of one particular class who were supposed to be richer than others. There was not even so much ground for consenting to the

    157
    charge as there was in the case of the Charity Commission.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, what amount of these expenses described as repayable had actually been repaid? because for the first year, at any rate, no repayments whatsoever were secured, and this fact came out before the Public Accounts Committee. Whether any had been paid since, he did not know; but possibly the Secretary to the Treasury could say what was the total expenditure under this head, and what amount had been paid.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, he had not got the figures; but he would furnish the hon. Member with the information. He explained that the matter had been rather delayed in consequence of the necessity of taking what was known as a "test" case which should govern the whole of the cases.
    DR. TANNERrose to speak; but——
    It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  BANN DRAINAGE BILL.— [BILL 312.]
  (Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  BANN DRAINAGE BILL.— [BILL 312.]

    ADJOURNED DEBATE ON APPOINTMENT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be further adjourned till Monday."
    THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)said, he wished to submit a question to the Speaker on a point of Order. He gave Notice last night, by speech and writing, that on the next occasion of this Bill coming before the House he should move that, in consequence of the exclusion of Irish Representatives from the debate on the second reading, the House declined to proceed further with the measure. That Notice had not appeared on the Paper; and the question he had to ask was, as the Speaker had been good enough to say earlier in the Sit-
    158
    ting, that Irish Members would have full opportunity of debate on a subsequent stage of the Bill, in what form could their objections be raised, if not pertinent to the Motion for reference to a Select Committee?
    MR. SPEAKER: The Motion before the House in regard to the Bill is, that it be referred to a Select Committee, and the Notice of the hon. Member is not relevant to that Motion.
    MR. SEXTON: If that is so, and the only question to be debated is the constitution of the Committee, then in view of your announcement that Irish Members would have full opportunity to debate the Bill, I would ask you, Sir, in what manner that debate can be raised?
    MR. SPEAKER: On the Report stage of the Bill.
    MR. SEXTON: After it comes back from Committee?
    MR. SPEAKER: After it comes back from Committee.
    MR. TOMLINSON: The Bill goes to a Select Committee; will it not then be considered in Committee by the House?
    MR. SPEAKER: It must come before the House.
    Debate further adjourned till Monday next.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]— [BILL 318.]
  (The Lord Advocate.)
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]— [BILL 318.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. HUNTERasked some Member of the Government to say what was proposed to be done with this Bill; if it was to be proceeded with, or what day it was to be taken, and whether the Bill should not appear on the Paper, except on the day when it was really intended to proceed with it?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he thought the hon. Member must see that it would be obviously impossible to say now, or long before hand, when the Bill would be taken. The Business of the House had to be arranged and governed by circumstances that arose day by day. But if the hon. Member would ask the First Lord, his

    159
    right hon. Friend would give all the information at his disposal.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  QUESTION.

    CROWN LAND REVENUE OF WALES.
    MR. T. E. ELLISasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he would consent to an Address for a Return showing the produce of the Crown Land Revenue of Wales from the year 1836 to the present, in the form set out in his Notice?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he was afraid he could not do so; it would involve a great deal of labour, and he failed to see the value of the Return when produced.

  MOTIONS.
    EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1882 (CULLEN TRUST).

      MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
      DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, the House had become somewhat out of training for late hours, and he felt that some apology was due from him for introducing that subject; but he hoped the discussion might not occupy much time. Scotch Members, at any rate, would feel that though the question in itself might be a small one, it was part of a question that was exciting much public attention—the action of the Commissioners in interfering with existing arrangements which had been found to work extremely well. There was no need for him to say much upon the general principle of the Act of 1882; that point had been well urged by the hon. Member for Roxburgh (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) in relation to a kindred subject on the previous night. He had nothing to say against the Commissioners; they were able and patriotic men who did a great deal of hard and laborious work without fee or reward. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, however, seemed to think that because the Commission was appointed by Act of Parliament, they occupied a sort of angelic position, and it was not in the power of the House to alter or question their actions. That was not
      160
      the general view in the country, nor could he (Dr. Farquharson) accept the judgment of the Commissioners as in fallible, and the very fact that the procedure under the Act required that their proposals should lie before the House for consideration justified him in challenging the scheme. Avoiding any great detail, it was sufficient to say that the present scheme had relation to a part of the country in the constituency he had the honour to represent, and it had to do with an old trust left by Lord Cullen two centuries ago, for the benefit of the education of the poor in the parish of Monymusk, and the money was applied in virtue of a scheme framed in 1825 by the Court of Session, so that there was nothing antique or archaic in the way the trust was applied in carrying out the idea of the founder. A school was carried on on the North side of the Don, and a certain number of poor children received education, the fees being paid out of the trust. There was nothing in the way of doles in this case, nothing spent for maintenance or clothing; it was absolutely an educational endowment. The new scheme of the Commissioners was, that of the £90 a-year, the income of the trust, £25 only should be devoted to paying for elementary education, that £20 should go to the establishment of four bursaries, and the remainder to the general purposes of the school. What the people wanted was that instead of four bursaries there should be two, and that showed practically that the people of the parish, as might be expected of Scotchmen, and especially Aberdonians, men quite alive to the importance of higher education and the value of means by which the young could go from school to the University, but they thought that four bursaries was too large a proportion from this small endowment. They wished to have two bursaries, and further they desired to have it distinctly laid down that the bursaries should apply only to the parish, for they feared that the educational advantages might be secured by persons outside the parish. To secure the advantage of higher education upon a good groundwork of primary education, they wanted a sum devoted to the payment of pupil teachers, so that the head master might be set free for the higher education he would like to carry on, and they also wanted to erect a new school in a different part of

      161
      the parish, where the population had increased in consequence of certain quarry works being carried on. Of course, it would be said that that would have the effect of saving the rates; but he was bound to say he did not see why the rates should not be saved. He thought the arrangement the school board wished and the people wanted, which carried out the wish of the pious Founder, and, at the same time, duly recognized the importance of having higher education and bursaries, to enable boys to climb from school to the University, might well be granted. A letter from Mr. Grant, an excellent constituent of his, put the case clearly. He said the inhabitants of the parish were mostly labourers and crofters; there were very few large farmers, and the trust had been a great been to them, as at present administered, enabling them to get through the trying times for agriculture; but the new scheme would be an additional burden laid on the rates which an agricultural district was not able to bear. Anyone who knew the condition of the agricultural districts in the North would admit the force of this. Further, his correspondent went on to express the opinion that the diversion of a large portion of the fund to the purposes of higher education was not in accordance with the wishes of the testator, who intended to confine the application of the fund to the parish poor. Without trepassing further on the time of the House, he thought he had shown grounds for modifying, if not altogether rejecting, the scheme of the Commissioners.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent from the scheme for the Management of the Endowments in the Parish of Monymusk, in the County of Aberdeen, known as the Cullen Trust, approved by the Scottish Education Department, now lying upon the Table of the House."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD)said, this was another of those schemes similar in some respects to that which had occupied the attention of the House last night, and it occurred to him, as he was sure it would to other Members of the House who considered the matter dispassionately, that it was not in the least surprising that in this, and in a large number of
      162
      similar cases of small trusts, when the Commissioners came to revise the application of the funds, whatever they did must, to a certain extent, be unpleasant to some people in the parish where the endowment was situated, and must, to a certain extent, tread on the toes of people a little sensitive on the subject. This was inevitable, and it was therefore not unreasonable, from their point of view, that these people should find means to get their objections expressed in that House, and should endeavour to get the scheme altered to meet their views. But if that course were generally followed, it would probably result in two Bodies coming to the House for judgment—the Commissioners appointed under Act of Parliament, and the self-established Commissioners of the locality. Now, he asked hon. Members to consider whether it was possible for the House to go into the details to enable it to come to a sound decision between these two parties? The Commissioners were in an independent position for making full inquiry, for hearing all sides of the question, and deciding as they thought best, and certainly without any bias whatever in favour of one view, or necessarily antagonistic to the views of others. In the present instance, the amount of the income of the trust was £94 a-year, and the endowment was about 200 years old. As the hon. Member (Dr. Farquharson) said, there was a re-arrangement, in 1825, by the Court of Session; but the whole educational arrangements for primary education in Scotland had completely changed since the scheme was arranged in 1825. It was now established, as part of the duty of the ratepayers all over the country, to provide education for the community, on the footing that expenses not met by the payment of fees should fall upon the rates. Hitherto, a considerable part of the expenditure for education in this parish had been paid out of the trust, and it had not been thought desirable to continue that state of things. He thought he was right in saying that there was a little want of logic in stating that because hitherto a district had been exempt from the burden it should continue to be exempt from a burden that had been shared by all their neighbours ever since the passing of the Education Act. Sir William Grant, in reference to the scheme, said his tenants would

      163
      have to pay a charge from which his ancestor expressly desired to free them. But he (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) had a higher opinion of the intention of his (Sir William Grant's) ancestor than that. The intention was to provide for the education of poor children by the payment of fees under a state of things totally different to that of the present day, which required an entirely different treatment. The Commissioners proposed to devote £25 to the payment of the fees for poor children; and as the population was not large, this was in proportion a considerable sum, and to that extent there was necessarily a saving of the rates. [Dr. FARQUHARSON: Only after competition.] He was not speaking of details, but referring to the allocation of money saving the rates. Then £20 were given for small bursaries for poor childen, one higher bursary was established, and the rest was given to the school board to help the general work of school improvement. All these things would benefit the community. It was all very well to say only a certain portion of the population would get the benefit of the bursaries; but surely the benefit of all classes should be considered. The hon. Member had himself shown that it was not at all to the general scope of the scheme that objection was taken, but rather to the number of bursaries. But was that a matter for the House to dispose of when it had no opportunity of inquiring into details? If that was a matter that could not be entrusted to the Commissioners, then the Act of 1882 could not be administered at all. After consideration of all details and objections that could be urged, the Commissioners had, upon their responsibility, arrived at a decision which the House should not, in a more or less haphazard fashion, override. Only one other point required attention, and that was the claim that a portion of the fund should be applied to the establishment of a school at a place at a considerable distance from that the testator desired to benefit. It was not a residential part, but quarries were being worked, a valuable industry was being vigorously and successfully carried on, and many hands were employed. But if this venture was producing successful results in dividends to shareholders, and work to the labouring population, he did not see why the
      164
      endowment should be drawn upon to secure educational advantages which the district might well provide for itself. But he thought the House would not be disposed to enter upon the details in reference to the scheme, but would trust the decision of the Commissioners, seeing that nothing had been shown to justify an alteration of that decision.
      MR. ESSLEMONTsaid, it was certainly a new experience to find himself in opposition to his hon. Colleague. It would not be denied that he had some claim to express an opinion, as he had given to the subject of these bequests considerable attention during the last 20 years, and he took the opportunity of entering his protest against the sentiment expressed on those Benches last night, that those who favoured the schemes of the Endowment Commissioners were endeavouring to deprive the poor of their patrimony. That accusation could not fairly be levelled against him. He contended, when he was accused of taking the fund from the poor, when the fund was diverted from elementary education, or eleemosynary purposes, that the object was in quite the opposite direction. What he desired in regard to these bequests was to apply them to the benefit of the poor in circumstances when no other fund came to their aid. Provision had been made by the Poor Law for the maintenance of the poor, and by the Education Act for elementary education; but there was no provision for the poor in respect to secondary or higher education, and the object of the Endowment Commissioners had been throughout Scotland to give poor children the opportunity of securing, by their own efforts, a higher education. He had no objection to any amount of restriction, and he understood such restrictions were embodied in the present scheme—to the effect that this secondary education should only be given to the poor who had no means but by these bequests of receiving that higher education. He thought there was a disposition on both sides, because the Charity Commissioners in England had not, in the opinion of many, used the funds under their control as they ought to have used them, to visit the sins of this Commission upon the Endowment Commissioners of Scotland. He had little in common with the Nobleman who was Chairman of

      165
      this Commission; he was an opponent in politics, and generally they found themselves of different opinions. But, although that was the case, he was bound to say that Lord Balfour, and the other Commissioners, had entered upon their work in the most liberal spirit, and had certainly, so far as he was able to judge, given earnest attention to the various endowments with which they had dealt in a fair-minded manner, without regard to Party, and certainly in harmony with modern ideas. His hon. Friend had referred to what happened in 1825; but his hon. Friend would not contend that the circumstances of even such an intelligent county as Aberdeen had not greatly changed since then. He would appeal to his hon. Friend not to press this matter to a Division. He would understand that the House had no power to alter the scheme, only the power to reject it by means of an Address. At present, there was a constitution whereby the fund was administered by the heritors and two parish ministers; and surely his hon. Friend did not object to the addition of two members of the school board popularly elected? At present, the school was conducted on the footing of no Government grant; but if the scheme was carried out, a sum would be raised for the parish equal to two-thirds of the Endowment by Government grant, and the school would be managed equally in the interest of the poor, with the advantage of Government inspection and grant. Under the circumstances, his hon. Friend would do well not to press the Motion. It would be quite impossible, as the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate said, to frame a scheme that would be in harmony with the views of the whole of the community; but he would remind the House, that the trustees of this endowment had the opportunity of proposing a scheme themselves, and it was quite within their power to urge their objections to the scheme of the Commissioners upon the Education Department. They had that opportunity, and failed to appear before the Education Department with a better scheme, and it was unfortunate that they should only now offer opposition. He submitted that it would be better if this scheme did not work out so well as was desired, to take the opportunity of getting it amended; but
      166
      meantime he could see no grounds for rejecting the proposed scheme.
      MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend (Dr. Farquharson) would press his Motion to a Division. Nothing said by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Esslemont) induced him to alter his opinion that the poor, who were the beneficiaries of the trust, would suffer by the proposed change. The hon. Member said it was not in the power of the House to modify the scheme, but only to reject it; but this was not correct, because, under the Act, it was competent for the House to address the Crown in favour of consent being with-held to any part of a scheme, and so the House had a power to modify any such proposal. He also protested most strongly against the argument of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, that it was not in the power of the House to thoroughly investigate these schemes. If that were so, what was the object of the scheme being laid before the House? It was the duty of the House to go into these schemes, and he regretted that there was no better method than by raising a discussion at a late hour. It had been said by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, and by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen, that the whole circumstances were changed, and that the poor were provided with educational and other advantages from the rates; and, therefore, the poor were no longer entitled to the fund left for their support. That was a faulty argument. Because persons without means altogether had a right to support from the rates did not give any moral title to those who wished to take away property left in trust for a certain purpose, purely on the ground that if it was so taken away for some other good object the beneficiaries would not be left destitute, seeing that they could get support from the rates. Men liked to be provided for from their own means, and it was unfair and unjust to take away those means, on the ground that the law had made provision for them from the pockets of others. He hoped his hon. Friend would go to a Division, and receive the support of a large number of Members.
      MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, he

      167
      wished to state exactly what the condition of things at present was, and what it would be under the new scheme. The greater part, almost the whole, of this endowment had been applied to the maintenance of a small school in Monymusk, attended by about 50 children. The school had never been under Government inspection, and had, therefore, never enjoyed the benefit of the Government grant; the endowment had simply been relieving the rates to the extent of educating some 50 children. What was proposed was that the school should be handed over to the school board of Monymusk, provided the board undertook to carry it on, making arrangements, if necessary, with the board of an adjoining parish a portion of which was served by the school. Part of the fund was to be applied to free scholarships—that was to say, the payment of school fees; small bursaries, three in number, and one higher bursary were to be established; and the balance was to be handed over to the school board of Monymusk for the improvement of the school, but so as not to interfere with the obligations of the board under the Education Act. The assistance that would be given would not be for such expenditure as under the Act the school board would reasonably be required to incur—the endowment would not be applied in such a way as to serve in lieu of the ordinary school rate—so that the poor would have the full benefit of it, as something in addition to what was provided by law. With regard to the free scholarships and the bursaries, they were all confined to children whose parents or guardians were in such circumstances as to require assistance for the education of the children under their charge. None others would receive that assistance. That being so, he hoped the House would see that it was not a scheme really open to such charges as had been brought against it by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire. In fact, the chief point of difference between the hon. Member and the Commissioners seemed to be that while he thought two bursaries would be enough they thought there should be four.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 96: Majority 42.—(Div. List, No. 233.)

      ADJOURNMENT.
      Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
      MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMsaid, he wished to say one word with regard to an appeal which was made to him by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) the other day. The right hon. Gentleman had asked him to use his influence to prevent the assembling of people in Trafalgar Square. He had not, at the time, been able to respond to the right hon. Gentleman's appeal, because he saw no chance of any efforts he made in that direction proving successful; but he saw now that the Bow Street Magistrate had consented to state a case for the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench, which would raise the question of the right of public meeting in Trafalgar Square. That being so, he would do all in his power to prevent people assembling in Trafalgar Square whilst the cases were sub judice.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, that if he might be allowed to say so, he had heard the hon. Member's statement with great satisfaction.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      House adjourned at five minutes before One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Land Charges Registration and Searches (221).
Report—Coroners (216–229); Solicitors (226).
Third Reading—Limited Partnerships (213); Archdeaconry of Cornwall (219); Lloyd's Signal Stations (220), and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL—Committee—Commons Regulation (Therfield Heath)* (209–228).

THE CLYDE—POLLUTION OF LOCH GOIL AND LOCH LONG.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that in rising to call the attention of the House to the Reports to the Secretary for Scotland on the pol-
  2
  lution of the waters of Loch Goil and Loch Long, and to ask a Question of which he had given Notice, it was necessary to make a short statement in regard to it. The Question as it appeared on the Paper might seem to affect a particular locality alone, and though there was no doubt that it did in the first instance, yet it involved a question of the greatest importance all over the Kingdom—namely, the increasing pollution of the waters around our shores. As was well known, these lochs were arms of the sea, and upon their shores a number of villa residences had been erected. For several years it had been perceived by those who resorted to these villas that in these arms of the sea the water was getting less and less pure than formerly. Not so many years ago he remembered that the water in these lochs was as pure almost as the water of the Island of Arran; but those who went

  3
  there to bathe had found that the water was getting dirtier and less fit for bathing every year, and likewise that it was less conducive to health. Under these circumstances, a Memorial was presented to his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland last year, who very properly nominated a Commission, consisting of Dr. Littlejohn, medical officer of the Board of Supervision of Scotland, and Mr. Fletcher, a naval expert, to inquire into the whole matter. The Report of that Inquiry had now been presented to Parliament, and it was a very remarkable document. If the water was kept pure there was no city in the world that would possess such remarkable facilities in the way of a health resort as the great City of Glasgow, which was growing enormously in wealth and population. The result of the Medical and Naval Report was entirely to confirm the complaints of the dwellers by the shores of the sea lochs. The Medical Commission reported that there were three sources of pollution of these waters. The first was the sewage of Glasgow; (2) the discharge into the Clyde of the refuse of chemical works; and (3) the dredging of the river. With regard to the first, he was perfectly aware that his noble Friend had no power; but in regard to this matter he would not trouble their Lordships with any details. That was a question that involved immense engineering operations which as yet had not been fully considered. He thought the time was coming, however, when the inhabitants of Glasgow would see that it was absolutely necessary to provide some such scheme as that applied to the sewage of London. Those of their Lordships who had not been down the Clyde at this period of the year had no idea of the horrible condition of the River Clyde. For some 10 miles below Glasgow the odour was overpowering, and was almost like navigating a sewer. He believed that the City of Glasgow had not taken any steps whatever for utilizing the sewage or discharging it into any more open sea. He would not dwell upon that, however, as he was aware it involved engineering works of enormous magnitude. But there were two other sources of pollution. One was the discharge into the Clyde of the refuse from the chemical works along its banks, and the other was the dredging of the river. With regard to the refuse from the
  4
  chemical works, he believed his noble Friend with the aid of the Local Government Board had power to check this source of pollution, and he hoped that, so far as that source of the pollution was concerned, the remedy was already applied. The third source was one connected with some very curious statistics. Their Lordships were aware that our principal navigable rivers all round the country had been made navigable chiefly by the exertions of man. Originally very small streams, admitting only vessels of very small draught, by means of steam dredging they had been made great channels of commerce. The Clyde had been made a channel that ships of very large burden could ascend all the way to Glasgow. It would give some idea of the enormous magnitude of the operations if he told them that he was informed by an eminent engineer that in 40 years the dredging of the Clyde had resulted in the removal of 40,000,000 tons of material, which if piled up would make a pile 500 feet high, and a mile and a-half in circumference. These operations were carried out by a Trust called the Clyde Trustees, who were empowered by Act of Parliament to dredge the river. Up to the year 1862 the dredgings were applied to the soil by agreement with the various proprietors, being used on the marshy soil to raise the level of the neighbouring land, the result of which had been to produce some most valuable property. About the year 1862 the Clyde Trustees took it into their heads that this was a most expensive operation for them, and they, therefore, determined that, instead of applying the material to raising the neighbouring land, and destroying the marshes along the Clyde, they would pitch it all into the sea lochs, which were the resorts of the public for bathing. A friend of his at the time warned him that the result would be deleterious to the health of the neighbouring shores. He argued against this friend on the ground that the dredgings consisted of sand and gravel, and would sink to the bottom, and do no harm to anyone. His friend, however, was right. During the last 20 years 26,000,000 tons of dredgings had been thrown into these lochs for the purpose of filling up certain deep holes. It turned out, however, that, notwithstanding this enormous mass of material had been poured

  5
  in, there was no apparent filling up of the holes, and the result obviously was that all this deleterious stuff had been diffused over a wide surface, and had deposited itself along the shores, fouling and rendering them unfit for bathing purposes. This was clearly ascertained by the Report just presented. He simply wanted his noble Friend to stop this operation, and in his opinion it was in his power to do so; because, so far as he could read the Act under which the Clyde Trustees acted, they had no power whatever to pitch this material into the open sea to the detriment of their neighbours down the Clyde, though they were empowered to deposit the dredgings for the purpose of making embankments, and improving the river. He did not know whether the Executive Government had the right to suspend an Act of Parliament, and give these powers to the Clyde Trustees; but if the noble Lord was able, by the mere withdrawal of a permission, to put a stop to this depositing the dredging, the Trustees would have to dispose of it according to the Act of Parliament. He took a deep interest in the prosperity of the City of Glasgow; but it was clear that the Clyde Trustees could not be allowed to pollute these lochs to the detriment of thousands of people on the shores. Nothing could be stronger than the words of the Report as to the nuisance caused, and also as to the fact that the soundings in the lochs had not been materially altered. With regard to the burden that would be thrown on the City of Glasgow if this practice was stopped, if any difficulty was made on the part of the landed proprietors, there was an enormous amount of land left dry at low water upon which the material dredged up might be deposited. It was perfectly feasible and easy to dispose of it in this manner. Great injury was being done to the public, and serious damage was caused to those who lived on the shores in the neighbourhood by the present state of affairs. He trusted, therefore, that his noble Friend would take immediate steps to inquire into the legality of the present method adopted by Trustees, and, if possible, to put an end to it.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN)observed that the question raised by the noble Duke was one of very great importance,
  6
  affecting, as it did, the whole rivers of the United Kingdom. He did not, however, think it necessary to go into the general question of river pollution, but would confine himself to the point of the River Clyde, because the enormous and rapidly increasing population on the banks of the Clyde made it a matter of the greatest importance that that river should be purified from its present insanitary state. The noble Duke had said that the City of Glasgow had never taken any steps whatever to improve the state of the Clyde; but his own impression was that in 1876 the City of Glasgow expended £11,000, upon the Report of Sir John Hawkshaw, for introducing a different system of drainage. The city introduced a Bill into Parliament in regard to it, and only withdrew it in consequence of the very strong opposition brought to bear against the scheme. That showed that the City of Glasgow had done something in the matter. Last year he had received strong representations upon the subject of the pollution of the Clyde from the inhabitants on the shores, and he had considered himself justified in directing that a Report should be drawn up. He had given directions to Mr. Fletcher and Dr. Littlejohn to inquire into the matter, and report to him; and he had also requested the Admiralty to give what assistance was in their power. The result of the Report had entirely justified the complaints made by the residents on the shores of the Clyde as to the insanitary condition of the river and the evil results of the dredging and the want of proper drainage. The noble Duke had said that there were three causes of the pollution. The Report specified six; but he thought the noble Duke had acted wisely in confining himself to the first three—namely, the sewage pollution, the refuse from alkali works, and the dredging. With regard to the first, he was afraid that his power did not go so far as to prevent the evil; with regard to the chemical pollution, he believed that new discoveries had shown that the waste which now polluted the lochs could be made use of, and might become a source of wealth. With regard to the dredging, he would make a point of inquiring by what authority this practice of getting rid of the results had been continued. He had always understood that the Clyde Trustees were

  7
  acting strictly within their legal rights in acting as they had done; but as the noble Duke had raised the question, he would seek the advice of the competent authorities upon the matter. He was firmly convinced of the necessity of making some change, in order to purify the Clyde, and he should not hesitate to take all the means in his power to that end.

IRELAND—POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.

  RESOLUTION OF CONFIDENCE.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP,in rising to move—
  "That the names of the Lords present in the House on Thursday, the 12th of July, and assenting to the Resolution of Confidence in Her Majesty's Ministers passed nemine contradicente, be printed and circulated with the Minutes,"
  said, their Lordships on Thursday last week had assembled in considerable numbers; the Cross Benches had been crowded, and the only part of the House not amply filled had been the Bench immediately behind those who had been formerly Ministers of the Crown. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had brought forward a Motion, to the effect that Her Majesty's Government deserved the support of Parliament in their conduct of affairs in Ireland, in a speech distinguished by the clearness of thought and beauty of language which always marked the oratory of the noble Duke. That Motion had been carried nemine contradicente, notwithstanding the fact that the speech had contained observations reflecting very severely upon many politicians in that House. It must be a great staisfaction to Her Majesty's Government to be assured by their Lordships that they unanimously approved the action of the Government; but in politics votes ought to be weighed as well as counted, and it was very desirable to know what had been the constituent elements of their Lordships' House upon that occasion. If there had been a Division a list would have been published, and they would have known the exact amount of support which Her Majesty's Ministers had received; but though no Division List would on this occasion show who were the Peers who extended their confidence to Ministers, it was the duty of some of the officials of the House to record the names of all Peers
  8
  present, and therefore it was in their power to have the names reproduced of those who had been present when the Vote of Confidence was passed nemine contradicente. What he asked their Lordships to do was to order that the list of Peers attending on Thursday of last week should be printed and circulated with the Minutes. They would then have the moans of knowing what were the elements in the House of Lords which gave their support to the Motion. He denied that the list of Peers present would not furnish an adequate test of the opinion of those who were present, because every Peer present was bound to make himself acquainted with the Business on the Paper, and those who were in the House in the early part of the proceedings and did not think it worth while to record their votes were not entitled to say that they did not concur in the Resolution. Some persons had perpetrated what were called "extra-Parliamentary utterances," and animadversions were made upon their conduct which none of their political allies were able or willing to justify, and in the present juncture of affairs it was right that the public should know how to estimate the significance of the remarkable vote which their Lordships arrived at on the Thursday of last week. It was for that reason that he moved the Resolution.
  Moved, "That the names of the Lords present in the House on Thursday, the 12th of July, and assenting to the Resolution of Confidence in Her Majesty's Ministers passed nemine contradicente, be printed and circulated with the Minutes."—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I am afraid that my noble Friend and Relative has found this Motion a little more troublesome than he anticipated; but I may state, with regard to myself, that I have not the least objection to have put on the Minutes and circulated that I was present and did not dissent when the Question was put on the Motion of my noble Friend the noble Duke. But apart from absolute want of precedent which the noble Earl acknowledged, there seems to be another practical difficulty. Your Lordships, no doubt, remember the reply which a certain French Minister made to an application of a great lady. He said—"If it be possible, the thing is done; if it be impossible, it shall be done." That was very gallant

  9
  of the French Minister, but it is not quite a principle upon which your Lordships can act; you cannot bind yourselves to do that which is impossible. In the original notice which the Noble Earl gave he spoke of a Motion on the Votes which passed on the 10th of July. I referred to the record of our proceedings on the 10th, and I found that we were principally occupied more or less seriously on that day with a Bill for the reform of the House of Lords, on the assurance of the Prime Minister that it might pass this Session, while, as I was informed, the Leader of the Government in "another place" had, by anticipation, abandoned the Bill. I did not find any Vote of Confidence on that point. I see, however, my noble Friend corrected that error. I have not the slightest objection to my name appearing on the Minutes as being present when the Question was put, and I should not object if it was also accompanied by a coloured plan pointing out the distribution of the forces in this House. But there is one excellent reason against this—it, unfortunately, cannot be done. The Clerks make a list of the entrées of Peers to the House, and of the Peers who take part in a Division; but they make no list of the Peers present when a Motion is put and carried without a Division, and I demur to the proposition of the noble Earl, that a Peer who enters the House assents to what is done in the House during the whole of that day. My noble Friend animadverted with considerable severity, but with the courtesy which he always exhibits, on the action or inaction of the Front Opposition Bench. But it appears from a letter which was published in The Times that my noble Friend the noble Duke was annoyed much more acutely, for he charged us with being in a conspiracy of silence which gave pain to all sincere and manly politicians. Well, now, I freely admit that a conspiracy to maintain silence, whether manly or unmanly, on any occasion is an offence of which my noble Friend is unlikely to be guilty. But we are by no means open to a charge of that kind. We are placed in some difficulty with regard to the line we should take. The noble Duke made a long, a very able, and a very carefully prepared speech. It was magnificently delivered, it was enlivened with illustrations both interesting and amusing, and it made unex-
  10
  pected reference to certain proper names. In my ignorance, until I heard the noble Duke, I had believed that the policy of Henry VIII. in Ireland was not absolutely beneficent. But there were no arguments which my noble Friend used which did not appear to us in the guise of very old friends indeed. My Colleagues and myself came down to the House intending to take part in the debate, and prepared to do so; but towards the end of the noble Duke's speech we came to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that that brilliant speech, so acceptable to those in this House who agreed with the speaker, was not likely to affect public opinion much, or to check that flow which again, rightly or wrongly, we believe is moving in favour of the views which we hold. We thought, in these circumstances, that it was desirable to wait. The noble Earl has defined the Motion made by the noble Duke as a Resolution of Confidence in Her Majesty's Ministers. There is nothing more usual than Votes of Confidence in an existing Government. We have all known several which have saved the existence of a Government for a longer or shorter period. They are sometimes directly or indirectly solicited by Government. Sometimes they are used as a balm in one House for a blow inflicted in another. Sometimes they are forced upon a Government determined to resign. But I do not recollect any Vote of Confidence in a Government except for a heavy blow inflicted, or with a view to one impending. It is not my business to prove that Her Majesty's Government were in no such difficulty last Thursday week. Possibly, considering the almost complete collapse of their legislation, the lesson which successive bye-elections have taught, or possibly from the present state of Ireland, it was so; but we are perfectly ignorant whether this Motion of the noble Duke's was a Vote of Confidence, whether it had been solicited by Her Majesty's Government desiring to have the shield of the noble Duke thrown over them, or whether he himself was acting with the advice of the leaders of the section of the Party to which he belongs, who thought that the Government were in such a miserable plight that they could not be saved except by his strong arm or still stronger tongue. The noble Duke care-

  11
  fully abstained from saying whether his Motion was one of Confidence or not. I do not remember his having said one single word in defence of the conduct of the Government and the mode in which they apply the repressive legislation passed last year for Ireland. But most certainly he did not base his arguments on approval of the conduct of the Government in Ireland. My Lords, I have always thought that my noble Friend the noble Duke is one of the most straightforward and crystal characters that I know; but it seems, after all, that there is a slight flavour of Machiavellianism in his disposition. My noble Friend having decided that the Government were in this miserable plight and required his help, he framed a Motion, but in doing so he constructed a cunningly designed trap for his old Colleagues to fall into. If we had said "Not-Content" to his Resolution, it would have enabled him to say that we were against protecting the liberties of the public; while, if we had said "Content," it would have enabled him to say that we approved the particular mode Her Majesty's Government had adopted for protecting the liberty of the public in Ireland. My Lords, I think these are circumstances in which we had a right to take the course we took. I cannot see that any harm was done to the noble Duke himself. He had the opportunity of delivering his speech, and he carried a perfectly harmless Resolution, to which, I can honestly and conscientiously say, whatever my views of the administration of Her Majesty's Government may be, I have not the slightest objection. If any noble Lord was suffering from the disagreeable complaint of speeches driven inwards, I can only express my very great regret and hope that he may speedily recover. But I do wish emphatically to repudiate the idea that I am an insincere and unmanly conspirator because I did not say "Not-Content" to a Motion which, if it does contain anything of Confidence, is a merely quasi-Vote of semi-Confidence in Her Majesty's Government of a perfectly innocuous character, and that I cannot do what I did on Thursday last without such an accusation being launched against me and my Friends, although I am more firmly convinced than I ever was that Her Majesty's Government are following a course
  12
  which does not secure and is not calculated to succeed in securing the objects of this political truism.
  EARL COWPER: I am glad, my Lords, that we have had some explanation of the extraordinary scene of the other night, although I cannot say that I think the explanation altogether satisfactory. It appears now that there was no conspiracy of silence on that occasion. I am glad, my Lords, that there was no conspiracy; but anything more like one I confess I never saw. I think, however, that if there had been a conspiracy, there might, from one point of view, have been some excuse, because the impression created in my mind by the Front Bench here is that people will very often do, when acting in a body, things which you would hardly expect them to do when acting individually. I think that for men to go about stumping the country and making strong and violent speeches, and then when challenged in their own places in this House not to get up and defend what they have said or to apologize for their mistakes, constitutes conduct which I am surprised to see, though possibly it might be accounted for by a general understanding arrived at before hand. If the noble Duke had been an unknown man, a young Member of your Lordships' House, or even a well-known man not much thought of, I think it might have been a snub to him that his remarks called forth no attention; but being, as every candid man must admit, one of the greatest speakers of the day, and having been a Cabinet Minister longer almost than any man living, and holding a very high position before the country, it could not have that effect. But I think, my Lords, that it was rather a slur on this House, seeing that it seemed to convey the impression that it does not very much matter what the House of Lords says—the country does not care for it. It will give some Liberal newspapers an opportunity of pointing out the insignificance of the House of Lords, and for men holding so high a position in the House to assist in bringing it into discredit is eminently unsatisfactory.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, I have only a very few words to say in answer to the somewhat extraordinary explanation of my noble Friend (Earl Granville). In so far as that speech

  13
  afforded any information, it was that my noble Friend could not vote against the Motion because it might be said that he was against protecting the liberties of the public. All I can say is that I should have been very glad if he had got up a week ago and said so; but his present course is to me wholly unintelligible. My noble Friend rather hinted that I was capable sometimes of Machiavellianism, and he also rather hinted that my Motion was brought forward at the suggestion of Her Majesty's Government. I can assure my noble Friend on my word of honour that the responsibility for the Motion rested entirely and absolutely with myself. I thought the time had come when this House should step forward out of the ordinary line of casual debate on this great subject, and take part with the House of Commons in passing a Resolution which should explain not only its support of the Government, but also the ground on which that support was given. I did make known my intention to a considerable number of my noble Friends who are in the same position as myself, that is to say, Members of this House who maintain, as we think, the true traditions of Liberal policy with regard to the union of the Three Kingdoms, and I received the assent of the noble Lords to whom I then appealed. That was the only step I took in the matter, and I can state with absolute certainty that there was no suggestion whatever with regard to this Motion which emanated from my noble Friends on the Front Bench opposite. Now, my Lords, my noble Friend spoke of this proceeding as having given some annoyance to myself. I can assure him I was not annoyed in the least—on the contrary, I felt it to be a very great triumph—I felt that my noble Friends could not answer the accusation I made. And my noble Friend has virtually admitted the fact. He said the object of speaking in this House was to influence opinion. In that I quite agree. There is no use in human speech except for the purpose of influencing public opinion, and all of us who speak in this House speak with the view of influencing public opinion. Then my noble Friend said he thought he would do no good to his side if he took part in the debate, and that therefore he thought it better to refrain from speaking; but the great part of my speech consisted of facts and not of arguments, and of quo-
  14
  tations from my noble Friend himself and his Friends. My noble Friend referred to the letter I published in The Times the other day, and said it indicated annoyance on my part. I wrote that letter in answer to a letter from Sir George Trevelyan containing very great misrepresentations, and so far from showing annoyance, I expressed sympathy with his annoyance. He told the public he was standing at the Bar, and would have given £100 to answer that speech. Why did my noble Friends on that Bench desert him? It seems to me an extraordinary act of desertion. I should say it was a base act of desertion. It was certainly a great exhibition, I think, of moral and political cowardice. My noble Friend and some of his Colleagues have been talking lately of bringing in a Bill to reform this House. I hope they will bring in a Bill to reform Her Majesty's Opposition, and to give them a little back bone and a little more courage to state in the face of educated men what they state to the shilling galleries outside, where they know they cannot be contradicted, because most of those whom they address are not acquainted with the facts. I think the House has some reason to complain of the action of noble Lords. There was no discourtesy to me; but I think it was not a worthy course to take in either House of Parliament. That is the only thing I have to say on this matter. I am not conceited enough to suppose that I can influence public opinion more than other men, but facts do influence public opinion, and unless these facts can be contradicted they will influence it.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, It will be the feeling of your Lordships that we are placed in a somewhat unprecedented position by the Motion of the noble Earl opposite. He moves that a record shall be printed and circulated of all the Peers present in this House on a day which was first fixed as Tuesday, the 10th, and was subsequently altered to Thursday, the 12th. For all intents and purposes, one day is just as good as the other. I should have been glad if the noble Lord had included in his Motion a list of the names of the brilliant assembly of Peeresses who were present in the Gallery, when the noble Duke delivered his speech, as I think that would have been more interesting than the list of Peers. The noble Earl supports his contention by this extra-

  15
  ordinary argument. He says that everybody who enters the House gives a blank cheque to the House of Lords as regards his political opinions for the remainder of that sitting, and that he is to be bound by any Resolution that is adopted and from which he does not in words dissent. I do not think that is an argument which can be seriously sustained, and I am sure that the noble Earl who has brought forward this Motion would be the last to support it. Then I come to the speech of my noble Friend behind me (Earl Cowper), who apparently was suffering from those symptoms which have been so vivaciously described by my noble Friend near me, and who has accused us of doing that collectively which we would not do individually. In using language of that kind the noble Earl was bound to establish his assertion. I have never considered it the duty of an individual to speak who has nothing particular to say. As far as I am concerned I can say most conscientiously that after listening to the speech of the noble Duke, I had nothing whatever to say. I come now to the speech of the noble Duke himself, which is, of course, the marrow of his whole discussion. The noble Duke occupies a somewhat exceptional position in this House. I do not dissent from the words of eulogy in which three noble Lords have to-night indulged with regard to the noble Duke, and when the Bill of the noble Marquess again comes before your Lordships, which is to deal with the exclusion of black sheep from this House, I shall be prepared to move an Amendment providing for the appointment of a Member of your Lordships' House as censor to deal with this matter. The name of the Member of this House most fitted for this Office will naturally occur to your Lordships. By appointing the noble Duke to that Office we shall have its functions exercised in an unsparing manner, and we shall also legitimatize those functions which he has long and innocently filled. The noble Duke never comes down to this House but to open an Assize. We do not always know who the culprit will be, but we know that he has the judgment in one pocket and the black cap in the other. We know that condemnation is pretty sure to be pronounced on some Member of your Lordships' House. The noble
  16
  Duke has pursued this course for a considerable number of years. He began with the late Lord Derby, then he went on to the late Lord Beaconsfield, then came the turn of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), when the noble Duke used to declare that it was absolute insanity to suppose that the Russians would ever occupy Merv. [A noble LORD: "Question!"] I am showing how it is that the Motion of the noble Duke did not receive all the attention it might otherwise have deserved. Of late years the noble Duke has reserved all his judicial eloquence [Renewed cries of "Question!"] for those whom he by some inexplicable mental process brings himself to call his "noble Friends." We may date this action of the noble Duke from the time when he left Mr. Gladstone's Administration. That is the Hegira from which his present action dates. From that period everything that we have done has been wrong; from the day we lost his guidance we have never been right. I may point out to the noble Lord who calls "Question" that these repeated rebukes have made us rather callous, and that if the lash had been wielded with a little more discrimination by the noble Duke his action the other evening might have had more effect upon our hardened consciences. As to the speech which the noble Duke delivered upon that occasion, we have heard it styled as powerful. I have no doubt that it was powerful, and its delivery was certainly powerful. The noble Duke says that speech consisted of facts. I am far from denying that. There were facts concerning Henry VIII., Ireland in the time of the introduction of Christianity, the annals of the Four Masters, certain doings of Garibaldi, and the Character of Mr. Lacaita; but it was not until the last 10 minutes of his impassioned harangue that the noble Duke even remotely approached the subject of his Motion. In that speech the noble Duke did make a charge against Sir George Trevelyan, and said that Sir George Trevelyan had not always been courteous to the Irish Members. But that was not an issue on which to raise a great debate, and it has been since adequately dealt with by Sir George Trevelyan himself at a subsequent picnic. I do not see that we were bound to involve the House in a long debate for

  17
  the purpose of vindicating the courtesy of my right hon. Friend. It must also be remembered that we had had a discussion of this very question a week before, when the Lord Chief Justice of England animadverted on the taste of having such a debate at that time. Upon that occasion, however, the noble Duke delivered his mind, or part of his mind, and one of the late Lord Lieutenants of Ireland (Earl Spencer) had the opportunity of making a speech, which I read, and which I venture to think was one of the most dignified and masterly speeches over made by him in this House. It does not, therefore, very clearly appear what was the object of the noble Duke's Motion. But there must have been some object. We know something of the inception of that Motion. We know that there was a meeting, limited in number but distinguished by opulence, at the private residence of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) in St. James's Square. We received the official account of that meeting, and at the end of that official account there came the remarkable announcement that the noble Duke had given Notice of this Motion. That meeting apparently entered into a conspiracy of silence, such as we are charged with. The announcement was received with gloomy taciturnity. Therefore the Motion was apparently not called for by that section which is termed Liberal Unionist. Was it called for by Her Majesty's Government? We are distinctly told that it was not. I did not need that assurance to be convinced of this. Why should the Government need the Resolution of the noble Duke? Had they intended to take part in the debate? Rumours reached me, from a source for which I have a great respect, that the Government intended to take no part in the debate, and that they had resolved to be mere spectators of the controversy between the different sections of the Liberal Party, looking on at the melancholy schism which devoured the Liberal Party. Let me ask what object the Government could have gained by this Motion? Did they need any assurance of confidence from this House? Did they need any counterblast to a Vote of Want of Confidence in the other House? Why, shortly before a Vote of Want of Confidence was negatived in the House of Commons by an enormous majority. Did they want to assure the
  18
  country that they had the confidence of this House? I venture to say that no one on this Bench has ever denied that the Government possesses the almost unlimited confidence of this House. Therefore we have to seek for some other motive for the Motion? I venture to say that the motive stares us in the face. The noble Duke had a speech to deliver and he must deliver it; whether it dealt with Henry VIII. or the annals of the Four Masters, or whatever subjects, it must be got rid of. The practical object in fact would have been attained by a Motion in the ordinary form, "That the Lord Sundridge be now heard." The speech was delivered and the object was attained. We saw nothing in that speech to be answered, and we remained silent. The noble Lord taunts us with being ready enough to address "the shilling gallery." We do sometimes address public audiences. I believe this to be part of the modern system of politics, and I think I have even read speeches of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) delivered elsewhere than in the select atmosphere of this House. The noble Duke, however, I regret to say, is not much given to haranguing what he styles "the shilling gallery." If he did he might produce some effect upon his countrymen, instead of preaching in this House to the converted. From "the shilling gallery," too, he would not be likely to have to complain of that apathy in regard to his utterances which he now laments to find on this Bench. I am willing to stand by every word I have uttered on public platforms; and, if necessary, to repeat it in this House; but you would be setting up a rather alarming precedent if you were to preach that repetition was the only course to take. Is everybody who has made a speech in the country bound to deliver it over again in this House? Such a custom, I venture to say, would have even a greater effect in diminishing the attendance in this House than the revolutionary doctrine of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Beauchamp). But the question really in issue between us was never touched by the speech of the noble Duke. I believe that we had the same end in view with regard to the government of Ireland—for I am willing to give my opponents credit for generous motives; I believe that we both wish to secure the peace

  19
  and contentment of that unhappy country; I believe that we, on this side of the House are not one whit less anxious than the noble Duke and his Friends to establish the law and order of which he spoke. The difference between us is as to the means by which to secure that end. We believe that you are pursuing a path on which every omen is sinister, and against which all experience should warn you. We believe that the only safe, permanent, and high-minded way to secure the maintenance of law and order in Ireland is to rest it on the sympathy and co-operation of the Irish people.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that the greater part of the remarks of the noble Earl who had just sat down had, as usual, been spoken lightly and jestingly. The noble Earl had thought fit to make fun of everybody and everything. If the censor of whom the noble Earl had spoken were ever appointed he should expect the appointment of a jester also, and he should be very glad to subscribe towards the cap and bells with which the noble Earl should be invested in that capacity. The noble Duke whom the noble Earl had lectured was a man of far greater eminence and was held in much more respect than the noble Earl himself, and could afford to treat his gibes with contempt. The noble Earl had said that there was nothing in the noble Duke's speech which deserved answer. He took leave to tell the noble Earl that he was under a very great misapprehension if he thought that the unfounded assertions which his friends made throughout the country were not going to be contradicted. There were statements in the speech of the noble Duke which could not be contradicted, and those were the statements which the noble Earl tried in his airy manner to put aside as unimportant matters of ancient history. The noble Earl and those who sat near him were deeply responsible to the people of this country, and especially to the people of Ireland, for their perversions of history, and for the way in which, having possibly deceived themselves in the first instance, they were constantly deceiving and misleading the people. Anyone who read Mr. Gladstone's pamphlet in which he explained his conversion to Home Rule would find important statements which had been contradicted, and which, al-
  20
  though untrue, had been again and again repeated, to the disgrace of speakers whom he would not name. Mr. Gladstone in his pamphlet talked about our having robbed Ireland of her old national Parliament when there never was a Parliament in the early years of the history of Ireland, except the Parliament of the English settlers. The so-called Irish Parliament, after many changes and vicissitudes, finally appeared in the shape in which it was popularly known as Grattan's Parliament, and in that shape it was a miserable travesty of representation, inasmuch as Catholics were excluded from the Parliament of a nation of which four-fifths of the people belonged to the Catholic Church. The noble Duke in his speech last week repeated some of these historical truths and showed the inconsistency and inaccuracy of certain of the speeches delivered in the country by noble Lords who sat in that House. At the silence of the noble Earl who had been Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Earl Spencer) he was especially astonished, because he knew the noble Earl to be the soul of honour, a man who would never be inaccurate intentionally. He was much surprised, therefore, that the noble Earl did not emancipate himself last week from the thraldom under which he appeared to be, and reply to the charges of inconsistency and inaccuracy which had been made against him. They had heard that Sir George Trevelyan, the trusted Colleague of noble Lords on the front Opposition Bench, had said at one of those political picnics, at which the Members of the Opposition delivered their harangues, that he would have given £100 to answer the noble Duke. How, then, was it that not one of the six or seven trusted Colleagues of Sir George Trevelyan who heard the noble Duke's speech attempted to answer it? No pecuniary obligation would have been incurred by them, and yet not one of them rose in his place. There were different ways in which men met charges against their honour. The noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) was not addicted to caution or accuracy in his statements. On a recent occasion, he had spoken of him (Lord Brabourne) in a way in which he would not have dared to speak some years ago when the old mode of meeting unfounded charges still existed. He

  21
  cared but little, however, what the noble Earl said of him either in or out of that House. It was sufficient for him to know that the noble Earl's statements could be easily answered; and, when they were directed against himself, he treated them with cordial contempt. In his opinion, the speech of the noble Duke deserved to be answered, if only for the honour and reputation of the House. At present certain grave charges of inconsistency and inaccuracy had been made against the Leaders of a certain Party, and no answer had been given, except such as was contained in the gibes and jeers of the noble Earl who had just sat down. As to the Motion before the House, he thought that no Peer who was present yesterday week could complain of it. Every Peer who entered the House that day must have known what was the Business on the Paper, and Peers who did not think it worth while to oppose the Resolution of the noble Duke could have no ground of complaint if their names were taken down as joining in the passing of it nemine contradicente.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I almost dread to remain silent, lest I should be accused by the noble Earl opposite of having come down to the House merely to see the schisms of the Liberal Party devouring each other, although I confess I would go a very long distance to see a schism devouring anything. I am afraid, too, that the noble Earl at the head of the Opposition might think that I was suffering from the painful malady of suppressed speech if I were to remain silent. On the whole, therefore, it appears to me right that I should make one or two observations in this interesting conversation. I have listened to this debate with great attention, to try and ascertain what has exercised my mind ever since last week—namely, what was the real reason for which noble Lords then performed that remarkable feat of silence. I confess I could not easily come to any other conclusion than that it was due to one of those sudden changes of opinion for which noble Lords opposite are so celebrated. Though we did not know it, we had their entire assent to Mr. Balfour's policy, and that it had been ger-
  22
  minating in their brains for some time—that we were the witnesses of the genesis of an idea, and that now they came forward with a great act of contrition and humiliation. I welcomed the Motion of my noble Friend because I thought it would give them an opportunity of lending emphasis to their display of patriotic feeling; but I understood from the noble Earl and from the noble Earl who has just sat down that it was really because they had nothing to say. Well, of course, the first remark that occurred to me was that they might have made the speeches then which they have made to-night. But, on hearing those speeches, I was not surprised that they preferred to take the other opportunity. I think they are quite justified in saying that they have nothing to say. Then the noble Earl who leads the Opposition went on to speak of the Motion as a truism and one in which he entirely concurred. He must have been recently studying casuistry; for it requires the strongest powers of non-natural interpretation to be able to extract from this Motion the sense which the noble Earl puts upon it. The Motion was—
  "That in the opinion of this House, Her Majesty's Government deserves the support of Parliament in securing for the subjects of the Queen in Ireland the full enjoyment of personal freedom in all their lawful transactions, and in protecting them from the coercion of unlawful combination."
  Now, I understand the contention of the noble Earl to be that though we are deserving the support of Parliament in doing these things, yet, as a matter of fact, we did not do them. He thinks that we deserve the support of Parliament in securing the personal freedom of the subjects of the Queen in Ireland; but, as a matter of fact, that we do not secure personal freedom of the subjects of the Queen. We have heard from the noble Earl who has just sat down that this policy of ours, which was the subject of their unanimous approval on Thursday last, is beset with sinister omens, and that it really leads to all kinds of catastrophes and terrors. Well, then, it is very surprising that the noble Earl should be one of those who unanimously approved the Motion a week ago.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I think I had better explain that which the noble

  23
  Marquess does not seem to see—namely, that we approve the object of protecting all peaceful persons; but we do not approve the means which the noble Marquess adopts.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: When you say you support a man in doing a thing you usually mean that he is doing it; but the noble Earl tells me that he has a special vocabulary and system of interpretation of his own. The only remark these proceedings call for is that they throw light upon the method of controversy which is pursued by those who lead Her Majesty's Opposition. The noble Earl told us that he thought silence was not likely to do his cause any harm. He prefers the speeches which have been made as to the flowing tide being in his favour. Now, if silence was the uniform policy of the Leaders of the Opposition I could understand his contention, but silence is not their uniform policy. Their uniform policy is not even confined to addressing the shilling galleries to which my noble Friend the noble Duke referred. They do not regard the advice of the noble Earl to address numerous and crowded audiences. On the contrary, the manner in which the controversy is now carried on by the noble Lords and by the right hon. Gentlemen of the Party opposite is that here, where they are capable of being answered, where their every argument can be dissected, where misrepresentations, if they are made, can be refuted, where mis-statements of history, if they are stated, can be exposed—here they observe the most absolute and careful silence. But outside this House there is no hole or corner in which we do not find a Leader of the Opposition making a speech. He gets behind Mr. Biggar and Dr. Tanner at a picnic in order to make a speech, or he is invited to a cheerful dinner given by Sir Wilfrid Lawson, and in the presence of eight or 10 guests, himself at one end of the table and a reporter at the other, he makes a speech, not only impugning the motives and attacking the characters of his opponents, but a speech replete with the most unfounded statements, replete with the most distorted law, full of attacks upon the judicial officers of the Crown, and reaching to that pitch of indecency that he did not shrink from commenting upon evidence that is now being given in a
  24
  case before a Court of Law. These are the two opposite sides of the medal. These are the two opposite poles of the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition. Wherever they can be answered, wherever their statements can be exposed, there they cultivate silence; but wherever it is possible to insinuate unfounded aspersions upon their adversaries, without any immediate chance of an answer, there they shrink from no assertion and let pass no opportunity of a speech. We have had displayed before us a singular difference of temperament between the late Viceroy of Ireland (Earl Spencer) and the Chief Secretary who served under him (Sir George Trevelyan). While the late Chief Secretary for Ireland was at boiling temperature, the late Viceroy was at the opposite end of the thermometric scale. While the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have given £100 to be able to make a speech, the late Viceroy would have given twice as much to be secured from all chance of it. And yet the curious thing is, nothing had been said against the late Chief Secretary for Ireland which he really need have minded to hear, but imputations had been made against the late Viceroy which few men would have liked to pass with silence. Of course, I mean of a public character. I do not wish to import any insinuation of private acrimony into the debate, but as regards his public proceedings, as regards the consistency of his present conduct with the conduct he pursued in past times, as regards the compatibility of the reproaches which he has addressed to his opponents with the conduct which he himself pursued, I confess that when these things were set forth in clear, lucid, and powerful language by the noble Duke the other night, I did wonder that the noble Earl did not bound to his feet and repel an imputation as heavy as any ever cast on a public man.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I do not desire to prolong this conversation, but as I am one of those who sit on this Bench, I suppose I am included in the censure which has been cast upon us. I will make this remark. I am not aware that I ever shrunk from advancing my views in this House. Only a week before the Motion I did not shrink from expressing my opinions. Possibly I am not much practised in

  25
  platform oratory, but whatever I say on a platform I am ready to say here. Does the noble Marquess suppose that any one of us ever shrinks from expressing our views that we think it one of the primary objects of any Government to secure the personal freedom of the subjects of the Queen, and to protect them from unlawful combinations? If we said "No" to such a proposal, we should put ourselves in the position of saying that the Government was not deserving the support of Parliament in doing what is the elementary duty of any Government whatever. The difference between us and my noble Friend behind me is very simple. If he had said that we approved the means by which the Government attained their ends, then we should have divided against the Motion. Those who know the course of the political history of the men to whom the noble Marquess refers, must know that they are just as ready as the noble Marquess to meet their opponents face to face, wherever they may be; but at the present day it has become the practice to make a large
  LIST OF LORDS PRESENT IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS ON THURSDAY THE 12TH OF JULY 1888, on which day a Resolution of Confidence in Her Majesty's Ministers was passed nemine contradicente.

  Cambridge, D.

  Ripon, M.

  Canterbury, L. Archp.

  Salisbury, M.

  Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Mount-Edgcumbe, E. (L. Steward.)

  York, L. Archp.

  Cadogan, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Lathom, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Amherst, E.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Beaufort, D.

  Aylesford, E.

  Bedford, D.

  Bathurst, E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Bradford, E.

  Cleveland, D.

  Brownlow, E.

  Grafton, D.

  Caledon, E.

  Leeds, D.

  Camperdown, E.

  Northumberland, D.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Portland, D.

  Clonmell, E.

  St. Albans, D.

  Coventry, E.

  Cowley, E.

  Abergavenny, M.

  Cowper, E.

  Bath, M.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Bristol, M.

  De La Warr, E.

  Exeter, M.

  de Montalt, E.

  Hertford, M.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Northampton, M.

  Dundonald, E.

  Morley, E.

  Ellesmere, E.

  Northbrook, E.

  Essex, E.

  Northesk, E.

  Ferrers, E.

  Onslow, E.

  Feversham, E.

  Orkney, E.

  Fife, E.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

  Fortescue, E.

  Granville, E.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Harewood, E.

  Powis, E.

  Harrowby, E.

  Ravensworth, E.

  Howe, E.

  Romney, E.

  Ilchester, E.

  Rosse, E.

  Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

  Rosslyn, E.

  Russell, E.

  Jersey, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Scarborough, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Selborne, E.

  Kingston, E.

  Spencer, E.

  Lanesborough, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Lindsay, E.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Lindsey, E.

  Strafford, E.

  Lovelace, E.

  Strange, E. (D. Athole.)

  Lucan, E.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Sydney, E.

  Manvers, E.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Milltown, E.

  Yarborough, E.

  Minto, E.

  Zetland, E.

  number of speeches out of Parliament. It may or may not be a convenient practice, but it has become a portion of our system of polities that does not apply to one side only; it occurs continually on the other side. It frequently happens that on such occasions the colouring is much higher than would be the case if political opponents were present. To that extent I agree there is a danger, but it is unavoidable in platform oratory. I agree with my noble Friend that no answer was necessary the other night. We have a right to our own judgment, and not to be guided by the judgment of others, and we shall always be ready to defend our Party in this House, without fear or favour, or any shrinking from expressing our opinions.
  Motion amended, by leaving out ("and assenting to the,") and inserting ("on which day a").
  Resolved, That the names of the Lords present in the House on Thursday, the 12th of July, on which day a resolution of confidence in Her Majesty's Ministers was passed nemine contradicente, be printed and circulated with the Minutes.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Cross, V.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Chelmsford, L.

  Gough, V.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Churchill, L.

  Hampden, V.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Hardinge, V.

  Hood, V.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinstar.)

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Oxenbridge, V.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)

  Torrington, V.

  Clinton, L.

  Carlisle, L. Bp.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Durham, L. Bp.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

  Colchester, L.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Coleridge, L.

  Lichfield, L. Bp.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Rochester, L. Bp.

  Congleton, L.

  Crewe, L.

  Aberdare, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Abinger, L.

  De Ramsey, L.

  Addington, L.

  de Ros, L.

  Alcester, L.

  de Vesci, L. (V. de Vesci.)

  Armstrong, L.

  Arundell of Wardour, L.

  Digby, L.

  Donington, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Dorchester, L.

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Aveland, L.

  Egerton, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Balfour, L.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Basing, L.

  Esher, L.

  Bateman, L.

  FitzGerald, L.

  Blantyre, L.

  Forbes, L.

  Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Bowes, L. (E. Strathmore and Kinghorn.)

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Grantley, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Greville, L.

  Grey de Ruthyn, L.

  Brabourne, L.

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Bramwell, L.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Brassey, L.

  Harlech, L.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Harris, L.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Herries, L.

  Herschell, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Hillingdon, L.

  Hindlip, L.

  Revelstoke, L.

  Hobhouse, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Hothfield, L.

  Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Houghton, L.

  Rossmore, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Rothschild, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Rowton, L.

  Keane, L.

  St. Levan, L.

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  St. Oswald, L.

  Sandhurst, L

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Kensington, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Sherborne, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Knutsford, L.

  Lamington, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Langford, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Lawrence, L.

  Leconfield, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Leigh, L.

  Lingen, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Lurgan, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Magheramorne, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Manners, L.

  Suffeld, L.

  Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.)

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Methuen, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Thring, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Trevor, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

  Tyrone L. (M. Waterford.)

  Mostyn, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Mount-Temple, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Napier, L.

  Wantage, L.

  North, L.

  Watson, L.

  Northbourne, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

  Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

  Norton, L.

  Windsor, L.

  O'Neill, L.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Plunket, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Poltimore, L.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—WEST LAVINGTON AND HORSHAM ENDOWED SCHOOLS—QUESTION.
LORD COLCHESTERasked the Lord President of the Council, Whether the Education Department are of opinion that any question remains to be determined as to the obligations of the Mercers' Company towards the school endowments of West Lavington and Horsham; whether any scheme under the Endowed School Acts is in progress with reference to Dauntsay's School at West Lavington; and whether any such scheme has been submitted to the Education Department relative to the Horsham Grammar School?
THE LORD PRESIDENT (Viscount CRANBROOK), in reply, said, that the original scheme with regard to West Lavington had been abandoned, but the Mercers' Company had behaved with great liberality in the matter, and it was hoped that a satisfactory scheme would soon be carried out. With regard to Horsham Grammar School, a Report had been presented to the Education Department. He did not know whether it had reference to the Mercers' Company, but, at all events, no conclusion had yet been come to, but it was under consideration.
House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.