I bog to give Notice that on Monday next, in Committee of Supply, I shall move a Supplementary Estimate for the Naval and Military Services.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether there would be any objection to the opening of Kew Gardens at an earlier hour than at present?

Sir, the matter to which the Question of my hon. Friend refers has been carefully considered by several of my Predecessors in the Office of Works as well as by myself, and what is asked could not be conceded without a large increase of expenditure and without materially interfering with the daily work in the Gardens. In fact, I may say the change demanded would involve the consideration whether Kew could continue what it originally was intended to be—a scientific utilitarian in- stitution—or merely a resort for pleasure-seekers. The present arrangements I really believe satisfy every one but those who live in the immediate neigh- bourhood. The visitors from the metropolis and elsewhere, as a rule, never arrive till long after the Gardens are opened, and sometimes days and weeks pass without any visitors. What a waste of public money would be incurred, therefore, were the Gardens always opened at 10 in the morning, and we constantly had to maintain an additional staff of men all the year round. Kew is open every day gratis to all, Sundays as well as week-days. Christmas Day is the only holiday, the only closed-day in the year. No institution in the country, I may say in Europe, is so freely open to the public every day from 1 P.M. till dark. Notwithstanding this, the authorities are so anxious to meet the reasonable demands of the public that, for the future, we are pre-pared to open the Gardens at 10 in the morning on Bank Holidays. I trust this will be satisfactory to my hon. Friend. He will see from what I have stated, that more could not be conceded without altogether altering the character of the Gardens, without doing away with the original intention for which the Gardens were established, and without largely increasing the annual expenditure.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in relation to the revelations of fraud, forgery, conspiracy, and obtaining money by false pretences, which have come to light by the trial and conviction of certain parties at the Central Criminal Court on the 15th instant, If he intends introducing a Bill to establish in this country a system of registration of land and other property similar to the Law or Laws now in force in our colonies?

in reply, said, he had had the advantage of consulting with the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General on the subject referred to in the hon. Member's Question, and he was able to state that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a measure relating to it at present.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, after Mr. Rowsell's Report on the food taxes in Malta has boon laid upon the Table of the House, the Government will take steps to abolish the 10s. a quarter Duty levied on grain imported into the island, and other food taxes?

As I stated the other evening, Sir, Mr. Rowsell's Report has not yet boon fully considered by the Government, and therefore my hon. Friend will no doubt agree with mo in thinking it would be premature if I entered into any of the details he alludes to pending a full consideration of the whole subject.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the fact that on Monday, the 14th instant, the following notice was posted on the Geological Survey Office Dublin:—

"Notice. Geological Survey of Ireland, Dublin. Considering the manner in which the 'Freeman's Journal' has encouraged the disloyal demonstration of yesterday evening, the 13th instant, the Director trusts to the good spirit of the officers of the Survey not to allow that paper inside the public office. — 14th January, 1878."

And, whether, if this notice was so posted, it was with the knowledge or approval of the Government; and, if not, whether the Chief Secretary will take any steps to prevent the repetition of similar conduct in Government offices?

The Geological Survey Office is not under my control; but I find, on inquiry, that the Director, on his own authority, had posted up such a notice in his own office as has been quoted by the hon. Member. I have read the articles in The Freeman's Journal to which the notice, I presume, related, and I am bound to say that I am not surprised that the Director of the Geological Survey considered the articles in question as de-serving of severe condemnation. But I think he might have left it to the good sense and the good spirit of his subordinates to form their own opinion; and if he considered it necessary to post any notice whatever on the subject of newspapers he might have been more general, and informed his subordinates that a Public Office was a place for the transaction of public business, rather than for the reading of newspapers of any kind. I do not see any reason for my taking any action in the matter.

gave Notice that on an early day he would ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the doctrine just laid down by the right hon. Baronet, that newspapers should be excluded from Public Offices, should not be applied to England as well as to Ireland?

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Returns of the number of Civil Bill Ejectments entered and tried in each county in Ireland ordered by the House on the 11th of May last has been made; and, if not, when it may be?

Sir, the Returns have been collected and will be presented on an early day. The delay which has occurred is mainly due to the difficulty experienced in obtaining Returns from the sheriffs of counties. No Returns were received from the high sheriffs of four counties, though repeated applications were made for them, and in several instances the sheriffs stated that they wore unable to furnish the information, or were only able to give a part of it. In other respects the Return is complete, but it is feared that that portion of it which was to be obtained from the high sheriffs must, for the reasons above stated, be presented in a some-what imperfect form.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Despatches intervening between the three following can be given, in explanation of their apparent inconsistency, viz.

(1). That from Lord Derby (January 4th, No. 16):"It is clearly indispensable that the conditions on which it (the armistice) is to he granted, should he discussed between the two (belligerent) Governments, and not merely between Generals…The armistice may well be arranged between the immediate belligerents, "but the" other Powers also are interested in the conditions of peace:"

(2). That from Lord Derby (January 8th, No. 22):"Under these circumstances (the supposition that the Russian Commanders have received the instructions) Her Majesty's Government consider that the conditions which appeared to them essential, in order to give effect to Prince Gortchakow's suggestion for an armistice, have been practically fulfilled:"

And (3). The Statement of the Imperial Commander in Chief (January 10th, No. 32):"The negotiations can only take place directly with me. There cannot, however, be any question of an armistice at this moment without bases of peace."

Sir, there are no intervening despatches; but in the despatch of the 11th of January, which has been already laid before Parliament, Lord Derby stated that he was unable to reconcile the terms in which the reply of the Grand Duke Nicholas was couched with those of the message they communicated to Her Majesty's Government, on the authority of Prince Gortchakoff, from St. Petersburg.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any Despatch was written and reply received in explanation of the two conditions, on negotiations for peace, imposed by the Russian Government (January 9th, No. 28): namely,

"That the Russian Army should advance, and that the Turks should be convinced that they would receive no aid from England?"

Sir, no despatch was written.

I beg to ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the Question of which I have given private Notice—namely, Whether the Russian terms of peace have yet boon received; and, if so, whether, without inconvenience, he can lay them before the House?

Sir, the Russian terms of peace have not been received by or communicated to Her Majesty's Government.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the Notice which he has given at the commencement of the Business, Whether he can inform the House when the Supplementary Estimates will be in the hands of hon. Members? It was my intention to have asked the Question which has just been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Tam-worth (Mr. Hanbury); and perhaps, without trespassing on the time of the House, the House would allow me to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has no further explanation to give on that matter than that which he has given? It will be in the recollection of the House that this day last week the right hon. Gentleman stated that a demand for further Supply would not be made until the terms of the Russian Government had been received by Her Majesty's Government. The answer which has just been given by the right hon. Gentleman does not appear to be altogether consistent with that assurance, and I would therefore ask him whether he has any further explanation to give on that point. And perhaps, further, the House would allow me to ask, whether, in view of the very grave anxiety, grief, and alarm, which no doubt will be produced throughout the country by the Notice which the right hon. Gentleman has thought it necessary to give, it is in his power now to make any further statement, in anticipation of that which it will be his duty to make on Monday, which may tend in any degree to diminish that anxiety, relieve that alarm, and calm the public excitement consequent upon it?

With reference to the first Question put by the noble Lord, I hope that the Estimate will be in the hands of hon. Members, or, at all events, that I shall be able to lay it on the Table to-morrow evening. I am not in a position to do so to-night. With reference to the second Question of the noble Lord—that is to say, the Question which relates to what he regards as the inconsistency between the Notice I have now given and what fell from me on the first night of the Session—I wish to remind the noble Lord and the House of what I really did state on the first night, because it was not exactly what the noble Lord has stated. The noble Lord had asked me in the speech which he made in the debate on the Address whether it was intended to ask for a Vote immediately, as had been shadowed forth in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech. In reply to that Question of the noble Lord, I stated that communications were going on with regard to the terms of peace, and that as we had then hoard that it was likely that within a day or two days those communications would lead to the terms being proposed, it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any immediate proposal to the House, because it might very well happen that when those terms, which were expected to be disclosed in the course of a day or two, came to be known they would appear to be such as might be accepted by the Porte and also be acceptable to the Powers of Europe Under these circumstances, I said, cadet quœstio; there would be no occasion for any proposal being made. Subsequently my right right hon. Friend the Member for Green-wich, in commenting upon those statements of mine, put to me across the Table the Question, whether he was right in understanding me to say that no proposal would be made until the terms of peace had been received, and I nodded assent. But I must ask the House clearly to understand that I did that in the anticipation that what I had contemplated at the time I was speaking would take place—that is, that within a few days we should be in possession of those terms of peace. At all events, the position was such that I think the House will gather that I could have had no other expectation than that within a very few days we should be in possession of those terms of peace. But since that time a week has elapsed, and not only have the terms of peace not been communicated, but we have observed that a very considerable and rapid advance has taken place on the part of the forces of Russia. Under these circumstances Her Majesty's Government have felt it necessary not to delay any longer that which Her Majesty intimated in Her Gracious Speech might be necessary— the necessity of asking Parliament to enable them to make provision if any circumstances should arise requiring that course to be taken. I am perfectly conscious of the inconvenience of a Notice such as that which I have been obliged to give; but the Government have thought it best that that Notice should be given at once, and that fair and due Notice should be given to all Members of Parliament, whether actually present in London, or having to come from any distance, that the subject would be brought forward on Monday. I think, and Her Majesty's Government also, that is the fairest and the best course, and although it leads to the inconvonience of a few days' delay, it is better than that the Government should be open to any charge of taking the House by surprise. I regret that I cannot find it within my duty to make any further statement upon the subject at this time, but I shall be prepared to do so on Monday.

Perhaps the House would forgive me for putting one further Question to the right hon. Gentleman. I should like to ask him, Whether it is the intention of the Government, before Monday, to present to the House any further Papers on the Eastern Question? In explanation I ought, perhaps, to say that the attention of the right hon. Gentleman has been called by one or two Questions to the fact that among the Papers which have been presented there are none that have any reference to our relations with the Courts of Europe generally. I would ask whether the Government now intend to lay before the House any Papers on this subject?

I will consider the subject in concert with my Colleagues, and we may be able, perhaps, to lay some Papers upon the Table to-morrow.

I think I shall best consult the convenience of the House by being very-brief in the proposal which I now wish to submit to it. I have to ask the House to appoint a Select Committee to consider the best means of promoting the despatch of Public Business in this House; and I do so partly to redeem a pledge which I gave in the last Session of Parliament, and partly because I think it would be for the convenience of this House; and of Public Business that we should consider whether there are not some amendments which might be made in the method of conducting our proceedings. What I am anxious to induce the House to agree to is the appointment of a Committee with this object, and I should propose, among other names, my own to serve on that Committee. In the event of the House choosing to place me upon it, I should be ready to present to the Committee, on the part of the Government, certain proposals having for their object the greater facilitating of the conduct of Public Business in the House. I think those proposals, would be better, in the first instance, considered 'in the Committee than, as the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) proposes, by discussing them in the shape of Resolutions on the part of the Government. I desire to say that in making this proposal I have not at all exclusively, or even mainly, in view what may be called the interests of the Government in this matter. I have sat for many years in this House, and have had occasion to notice the course of Business both from an official and an unofficial position; and I think it will be for the convenience of all classes of Members and of the House at large that this matter, which is a very important one, should be considered frankly and fairly by those who have been most conversant with the subject, who have attended to the manner in which Business is conducted, and who have viewed it from different sides. I should be sorry to give the impression that I was making proposals that were intended simply to facilitate Government Business, and that I was encroaching on what are regarded, and properly regarded, as the rights of the general body of Members. Nobody could be more reluctant than I am, either, to interfere with old-established rules, if they work fairly well, for the sake of introducing new ones that might at first sight look better; nor, on the other hand, is there anyone who is less disposed to infringe on undoubted rights of unofficial Members or of the House generally, or who is less disposed to infringe on the rights of minorities. I think it is most essential that, even if we have occasionally to suffer inconvenience, we should observe, and observe very strictly, those great principles which have been handed down to us by our forefathers in this House for so many generations. But I have remarked—as every hon. Member must have done—that from time to time it has been found convenient to revise and to some extent adapt our particular Rules of proceeding, in order to attain in a better way the objects we have in view. Business naturally changes; as a whole, Business increases; the number of hon. Members who take part in discussion naturally also increases; and, moreover, the amount of work that has to be done in Committee of Supply has of late years very much increased. I wish, therefore, particularly to consider whether this House is as well enabled now to perform that which is its principal object and purpose—the proper criticism of the Estimates in Committee of Supply—as it might be. I may be told—and I entirely recognize the rule —that it is is one of the first principles of the British Constitution, that the consideration of Grievances should precede the granting of Supply. But I would point out that when your Business is so conducted as practically to prevent hon. Members from taking their proper part, as they desire to do, in the discussion of Supply itself, that is a grievance on the part of hon. Members which ought itself to be considered. And although, no doubt, it is desirable that there should be as great a latitude as possible in the manner in which Business is conducted, and to give hon. Members the greatest possible freedom in bringing forward any subjects to which they wish to call the attention of the House, still there is nothing more important for hon. Members in all parts of the House than that there should be as much reasonable certainty in the Business which is to be brought forward and discussed as is attainable. That is important for the Government; but it is quite as important, or perhaps even more important to other hon. Members, because the Government are obliged to be here, and if they are not doing one part of their Business, they are probably doing another. But it may happen, and often does happen, that hon. Gentlemen who come down to this House, perhaps at some little inconvenience to themselves, after remaining here for a considerable time for the express purpose of discussing a particular subject, and which they had reason to believe would be brought forward, may find that some wholly unexpected subject occupies the sitting, and they are compelled to go away without the opportunity, it may be, of afterwards taking part in the debate when the matter is again introduced. Now, I wish to have the opportunity of making to the Committee, consisting of such hon. Members as you may please to place upon it, some proposals. They are not many, nor very intricate, but they are proposals which the Government think it right to propose with a view to the simplification of, and the attainment of rather more certainty in, the Business brought before the House. I do not think it desirable to throw these propositions loose on the Table of the House, nor do I think that a desultory discussion would be the best way of thrashing them out, so to speak. I think that they would be first better considered by a Committee, from whom they would come in a shape in which they could be discussed by the whole House, and accepted, or modified, or rejected, as you may please. I desire to say, also, that although I purpose making these proposals, yet in order that the Committee should not be one of a "fishing" character, it would not be at all proper, in my opinion, to exclude from consideration any other proposals which other hon. Members thought they had a right to bring forward, and which the Committee might be disposed to entertain. I hope, however, it will be understood that these are the conditions on which the Committee is to be appointed—that this is a Committee for the purpose of considering the "best means of promoting the despatch of Public Business in the House." I make this remark because there are one or two Amendments which go beyond the scope of the subjects to which I think the Committee's inquiry should be directed—as, for instance, when it is proposed that the Committee shall consider the possibility of the Imperial Parliament dealing with the affairs of the whole Empire—an Amendment which distinctly goes beyond the scope of the inquiry. It is not a question of how much Business Parliament can undertake, but how Parliament can do the Business it has to do in the best and most expeditious manner. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will be required to confine itself to that inquiry alone, and that it will not be asked to go into the longer and more difficult inquiry of the limits of Parliamentary jurisdiction. Again, I would wish to say that I am making these proposals for the consideration of Amendments in our course of Public Business on the assumption that every hon. Member will desire, in a fair and straightforward manner, to promote the proper conduct of the affairs of the House; and I am not making the proposals, as has been stated out-of-doors, with the view of meeting what is called "wilful obstruction." I have no such idea, and if at any time we have to deal with such a thing, we must deal with it on different principles and different grounds. I hope that such matters will never again cause us trouble in this House; but if any such misfortune should arise—which I do not anticipate—I trust that the House will be able to vindicate its own dignity, and to carry on its Business in spite of such untoward opposition. But apart from wilful obstruction, there are many occasions on which time is wasted—not wilfully but thoughtlessly wasted—and we ought to consider how, without limiting the free liberty of Members, we can get rid of the inconvenience which thus arises. I have argued for this Committee in very simple terms, and I see that several special directions are proposed, some of which lie within and some beyond its scope. Some, no doubt, may be brought under its consideration; but I deprecate the enumeration of them before the Committee is appointed. We need not give Instructions which would point to conclusions at which we are not likely to arrive in the debate to-night. Therefore, without any further comment, I will move for the Select Committee of which I have given Notice.

in rising to move, as an Amendment, to add at the end of the Motion the words—

"and especially to inquire into the desirability of committing Bills, unless when otherwise ordered, to Grand Committees, instead of to a Committee of the whole House,"

said, that it would be in the recollection of the House that towards the close of the last Session he had intended to move that Bills read a second time should be referred to Grand Committees. He had meant to bring forward that Motion early this Session, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Motion rendered it necessary for him to do so in the form of an Amendment. If it were desirable that the Select Committee should be appointed—a proceeding the benefit of which in common with the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr.Rylands) he doubted —it would be better to point out certain matters for its consideration than to leave it with so vague a Reference as was proposed. A Committee to be useful should have its attention directed to particular subjects, and it was in that belief that he had proposed that it should give particular consideration to the stage known as a Committee of the Whole House. Such a Committee, he thought, was almost a contradiction in terms, the very word "Committee" usually implying selection from a larger number of men intended to save the time and supplement the knowledge of the majority. That was a very generally adopted arrangement; but the House of Commons was unique in its adoption of a system which was certain to defeat its primary objects. One of these was the competent supervision and examination of details, which the present arrangement failed to secure. Nor did it save time, for the only difference between it and the House itself was that the Speaker was not in the Chair, and moreover further facilities were afforded for obstruction, since each hon. Member was allowed to speak as often as he chose. Decisions were very often come to in that House by Gentle- men who had not heard a word of the arguments and did not understand the merits of the question. That was an evil which applied to all stages of their proceedings, but it applied in an especial manner to proceedings in Committee; for even if they heard the question put, it conveyed no information to them, and they could not tell on the spur of the moment what would be the effect of inserting or omitting certain words in particular clauses. It very often happened that when hon. Members came up to vote upon questions raised in Committee of the Whole House they were entirely ignorant, not alone of the merits of the question, but of what it nominally was; and this especially happened in relation to measures affecting Ireland and Scotland. There were, for instance, two measures affecting those countries with which it was proposed to proceed in the present Session—the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Bill and the Grand Juries (Ireland) Bill. He ventured to say that very few Members unconnected with Scotland knew anything about the first, and certainly very few unconnected with Ireland knew anything about the second; yet numerous Amendments would be placed on the Paper, which would be utterly unintelligible to any persons not acquainted from personal experience with the subject, and votes would be given by hon. Members who had heard nothing of the discussions, and who knew nothing of the Bills themselves. Again, how frequently did it not occur that a Gentleman had convinced those who had hoard the discussion in Committee that it was desirable to adopt a certain Amendment and then found himself defeated by a sudden rush of hon. Members who had not hoard the arguments, and had no idea what the Amendment was. Another defect was the haste and hurry in which Bills were often pushed through Committee without adequate consideration of their wording; while it was a thing of constant occurrence that Amendments were adopted in Committee on a Bill late at night and without much consideration to prevent its being lost for want of time, the result being litigation and the necessity for amending the law a year or two after. Now, his proposal was to do away with the system of having all the details of a Bill considered by the whole body of the House. The proposal was no new one, and had in favour of it the authority of the late Speaker as well as of Sir Erskine May, who might, he believed, be looked upon as being almost its author. Various forms of Grand Committees had, he might add, been proposed. It had been suggested that the House, at the beginning of a Session, should be divided into such Committees, and that they should have submitted to them groups of Bills according to the subjects to which they referred, such as Education, Finance, and the like. To such a proposal he entertained the objection that it would fail to meet one of the great ends which he had in view—the consideration to some extent of the demands which came from Ireland, as well as other parts of the Empire, that the details of Bills should be considered by the Members who were most interested in them, and who understood them best. To the appointment of a Grand Committee of that kind there would, he thought, be the strongest opposition; and it was well that this should be known by discussion in the House before it was considered upstairs by the Select Committee for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved. It had also been suggested that on the second reading of a Bill a large Select Committee should be appointed by the House to deal with its details; but he was of opinion that the adoption of such a plan would have the disadvantage of giving rise to protracted discussions on the names of the Committee being submitted for the approval of the House. Another proposal which had, he believed, been made by Sir Erskine May was, that every Member of the House should be at liberty to serve on these Grand Committees; but were that proposal adopted without any restriction, one would hardly know who were serving on any particular Committee. Now, what he himself would suggest was, that at the beginning of each Session there should be a certain number of Standing Committees appointed, and among them a special Grand Committee for the consideration of Bills. relating exclusively to Ireland, another for those affecting Scotland, and, if deemed desirable, others for the consideration of particular classes of Imperial legislation, for Colonial Bills, and matters connected with India. To those Committees he would propose to give exactly the same powers as were now possessed by Committees of the Whole House, but no more. They should have authority to consider the details of a measure and to report to the House, their Report standing in exactly the same position as the Report of the Committee of the Whole House did at present. He would not, however, suggest that the Committee of Supply should be done away with, or that control over the finances of the country should be given to any more restricted number of persons than the Members of the Whole House. If his plan were adopted, the advantage of a great saving of time would, he thought, be secured, because several of these Committees could be sitting at the same time; while they would secure the important advantage of having each measure carefully considered by those who were most conversant with its details. If the proposal were carried out in its entirety, there would also be the additional advantage that it would meet to a certain extent what he should call the national demand from Ireland to have more weight and influence in the decision of Bills by which that country was affected. He did not mean to say that this measure would quiet the demand for Home Rule, but it would at least mitigate the evil complained of. If it was not thought right to adopt his proposal in its integrity, and if Grand Committees composed of different nationalities were not acceptable to the House, another means might be adopted of arriving at the same result. It was this—When a Bill was read a second time, the Committee might be fixed for a certain day—say not sooner than a fortnight—and meanwhile hon. Members who wished to serve might be permitted to enter their names on a paper placed on the Table for the purpose. After a certain date this list should be closed, and no other Member allowed to join the Committee except on a special vote of the House. The result of this system, he believed, would be that only those hon. Members would join a particular Committee who were really interested in the subject to be discussed, and that consequently the discussion would be conducted mainly by hon. Members of the nationality most affected. Irish Members would, as a general rule, put down their names as willing to servo on Irish Bills, and Scotch Members on Scotch Bills; and in this way indirectly, if not directly, a considerable step would be made in the direction in which he desired to advance. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that one main defect of the system now in force was that no one was aware when a particular Bill would come on. To remedy this he would propose that the Session should be divided into periods, one for English Bills, another for Irish Bills, and a third for Scotch Bills, by means of which not only would Business be facilitated, but hon. Members would be saved much inconvenience. If that was found to work well, he would not eventually despair of seeing the day when the Irish Business would be transacted by the Imperial Parliament in College Green, the Scotch in Edinburgh, and the English at Westminster. That, however, was a mere speculation, quite beyond his immediate object; and he would, for the time being, confine himself to moving an Amendment referring to the Select Committee the duty of considering the desirability of committing Bills to Grand Committees. He would also suggest that steps should be taken to obtain information as to the system of procedure adopted in other Legislatures, and especially as to the working of the bureau system in the Legislatures of France and the United States. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment.

rejoiced that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had decided on the part of Her Majesty's Government that the proposed Committee should deal with the question of Public Business generally. The House had had some experience on this question. In the year 1871 a Select Committee sat on the Public Business of the House, and that Committee made sundry recommendations; but subsequently circumstances changed in the conduct of the Business of the House, and practices were adopted by hon. Members of filling up the Order Book and otherwise, which rendered it necessary, in the opinion of many hon. Members, and in his (Mr. Newdegate's) opinion also, that the House should again consider the question of the transaction of its Public Business. He himself had repeatedly urged that there should be another Committee on the subject; but the late Leader of the House (Mr. Disraeli) objected, though the proposal of another Committee on the Public Business generally was supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich. What was the result? Why, that the difficulties of the House increased, and the right hon. Gentleman the late Leader of the House proposed a Resolution to the House with respect to the right of individual Members to "espy" strangers, and thus to exclude the public. That Resolution was passed; but it was not satisfactory to the House, was not renewed, and had not become a Standing Order. Then there were the Resolutions proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last Session. True, they survived for that Session; but they had not been found very effectual for their purpose, and there was no proposal to renew them. Twice in three years had proposals been adopted, with regard to the mode of procedure in the House, which did not meet with adequate consideration by the House to render them effectual. The only mode of amending their procedure, then, must be, as it had always been, to refer the whole subject of Public Business to a Select Committee, and to leave that Committee to devise the proposals to be submitted to the House. At the present moment there were several proposals before the House; and what objection could there be to hon. Members referring them, all or any of them, to the House, after the appointment of this Committee. If they found that all or any of them had not been considered by the Committee, that would be the proper mode of proceeding. First, appoint the Committee to inquire into the general Business of the House; then, if any hon. Member suggested grounds for believing that any point had not been considered, it would always be open to him to move an Instruction to the Committee; and the Members of the Committee, some of whom were always present in the House, could either accept the Instruction, or state the reasons why the Committee had not thought fit to consider that particular part of the subject. The Business of the House was a whole, and every proposal relating to it that was made ought to be considered with reference to the whole. The House was one body; and if they were to take each separate proposal, as now suggested to the House, the danger was that the House would direct its attention to that proposal only, and lose sight of the relation of the suggested change to the whole Business of the House. He earnestly trusted, therefore, that none of the Amendments, of which Notice had been given, would be pressed. The fact that they were on the Notice Paper that night was, he thought, sufficient to ensure their due consideration when the Committee met. He was convinced that the Committee would not overlook them, but enable the House to form a deliberate opinion upon them, for the Report of the Committee would be based upon a consideration of the Business of the House as a whole. He (Mr. Newdegate) himself made a proposal in the year 1875, the Leader of the House having suggested that they should proceed by Resolutions. He was not going into a detail of the Resolutions which he then submitted to the House; he would merely say that they were a result of long and careful research, and of a good deal of labour on his part, which he must say the Leader of the House was good enough to acknowledge. But those proposals were submitted to a very thin House; the House was unwilling to consider them, and the first of them having been rejected, he withdrew the others. Those proposals, briefly stated, were that, in the case of a Bill proposed by an unofficial Member of the House, the House should resume its ancient practice of discrimination, and should, on the Motion for leave to introduce the Bill, ascertain what was the nature of the Bill, and the machinery by which it was proposed to carry it out, before it was permitted a place on the Order Book. That was the general scope of those Resolutions. He had abstained, however, from giving any Notice in this House on the subject; because, from the assurance that he had of the nature and general scope of the Notice given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and from the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave him last Session, that this Committee should con- sider the whole subject of the Public Business of the House, he felt that he had no right, before that Committee was appointed, to give undue prominence to one particular part of the subject; for he felt confident that, when the Committee met, it would not slur over a question that had been acknowledged as important by the House. That a great change had taken place within the last few years in the conduct of the Business of the House he thought was manifest from the state of the Order Book, as compared with the state of the Order Book in previous years, and that change seemed to him sufficient to justify the House in instituting the proposed inquiry. Towards the close of last Session it was affirmed in the House that the transaction of the Business of the House had become so unsatisfactory to the country, that the position of the House in the eyes of the country was rapidly deteriorating, and such, he regretted to believe, had been the impression out-of-doors. The time was ripe for the appointment of the Committee on the whole subject, and he thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having redeemed his pledge of last Session by the proposal which he had now made.

bore testimony to the necessity for some change in the manner in which Public Business was transacted. He complained of the manner in which time was wasted in the repetition of hopeless divisions, as occurred during the memorable 26 hours' Sitting of last Session, when no less than 23 divisions took place, in many of which the minority varied from four to six. It seemed to him that in such cases the sense of the House should be taken on the propriety of continuing the divisions. Opposed as he should be, without great consideration, to the appointment of a Deputy Speaker, he still thought that a Deputy might be empowered to put the Motion for the Adjournment of the House at a late hour. It would be well, too, that the House should meet in November, and be prorogued earlier than was at present the practice.

said, the House had already had some little experience in the working of what was equivalent, if not superior to, Grand Committees. Bills of special importance were exceptionally referred to Com- mittees of unusual size — the Cattle Plague Bill, for instance, and the Endowed Schools Bill were so treated. If they swept away the word "grand" what remained was only the affirmation of the principle that important Bills should be thrashed out in Committees upstairs before the steam-thrashing machine of the House was applied to the results of the primary process. That was now done in the case of every Bill sent to a Select Committee upstairs. He did not believe that Grand Committees would produce better Bills in the end, though the process of production would be inevitably lengthened, unless the arbitrary and impossible change were made of abolishing the Motion for recommitting Bills. Select Committees, chosen from Members specially fitted to deal with the various subjects referred to them, were far preferable to the pre-sent proposal; for these confessedly contained a large infusion of experts, whereas a Grand Committee would only be of the average quality of the Whole House—in short, nothing better than the House in small—whose conclusions would command no respect from the House at large, when they came back to it. If they wanted to alter the present system—as to which he said nothing—the only possible course would be more frequently to have large Select Committees of, say, 40 Members, to be appointed, as now, by the Vote of the Whole House. The scheme of Grand Committees would break down at the first stage when the system of their appointment came to be considered. The House never would submit to their being appointed by any authority except its own, and he merely begged it to imagine the delays, difficulties, and divisions which would environ and bewilder the nomination of a Grand Committee when any important measure was in prospect, and Party spirit was rife. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), however theoretically valuable, was practically impossible, and would only lead to an increase of the catalogue of ingenious methods by which the Business of the House might be obstructed.

who had placed upon the Notice Paper an Amendment to add the words—

"And particularly to consider the expediency of continuing (in place of recommencing) some part of the unfinished work of one Session in the next Session of the same Parliament, and of putting some limit to the inordinate length of speeches,"

said, it seemed to him that the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) had made out a fairly good case for the modified scheme of Home Rule which he had laid down in a speech of much greater length than he should consider it necessary to inflict on the House. One of the reasons which had induced him to put this Amendment on the Paper was that there was no subject on which the House had shown such extreme reluctance to carry out the recommendations of its Committees as it invariably did in respect to the Public Business. The reason was obvious. Public Business affected every individual Member of the House, and every individual Member thought himself quite as well qualified as any other Member, and perhaps better, to form and express an opinion on it. For that reason the experience of former Committees was far from encouraging. The House had treated the Reports of these Committees with something like contempt, and it would be difficult now to find a Member of any weight to serve on a Committee which was liable to be so treated. For his part, he preferred to place on the Paper proposals which he believed, if carried out, would be likely to bring about considerable improvement in their procedure. He had given Notice of two such proposals. The first was to the effect that the Business of one Session might be continued in the next Session, provided a Dissolution of Parliament did not happen in the meantime — in short, that the various Sessions of each Parliament should be continuous, instead of treating every Session not as a Session, but as if it were a Parliament. Important Bills which had been passed through Committee with great labour had been kicked out of the House of Lords without any consideration at all, because they were not sent up in time. On this account the legislation towards the end of a Session was of the most hurried description. They were obliged to pass Bills through the House in the most hasty manner in order that they might be in time to be considered by the other House. Now, his proposal was that a Bill which had passed the House of Commons in one Session should be taken in the House of Lords in the beginning of the next Session. If that were done, there would be an end to the hurried work of the House of Commons at the end of a Session, and an end to the complete idleness of the House of Lords at the beginning of a Session. It would also save a great waste of legislative power. All the hours and the labour spent upon a Bill, unless it could be passed in a single Session, were entirely thrown away. Many important Bills which were well discussed and amended in one Session, had to be begun again the next, just as if they had never been heard of. This seemed such a waste of legislative power, that he could not conceive how it was tolerated from year to year. Another proposal was that some precaution should be taken to reduce the inordinate length of speeches. Since the last Reform. Act, a much greater number of Members were sent up who were desirous of taking part in the debates. If out of 658 Members only a dozen or half-a-dozen had time to take part in a debate, the House not only treated the other 650 very unfairly, but was not doing justice to the constituencies which returned them, and yet without some restriction it was impossible to get over that difficulty. Sometimes they had a four or five nights' debate, and yet the number of speakers was only about 30 that could take part in the debate. How was that to be got over except by making some limit to the length of speeches? All other Legislatures had means of doing so except ourselves, and we had attempted to establish one by Members crowding round the Bar, and endeavouring to stop a speaker by cries of "Divide, divide!" This was not only undignified and unseemly, but it was also extremely ineffectual, and he hoped that the House would find some other and better means of obtaining the desired end. He was quite willing that these proposals should come before the Committee, where he might be able to enlarge upon them at greater length.

called the attention of the House to the fact that the Committees consisted of Members from each of the three Kingdoms— Ireland, Scotland, and England—so that the Committee bore the complexion of the House itself. It was suggested that Irish questions should be referred to Irish Members. That would be a very great convenience in some cases, but in others it was a great inconvenience. In 1864 the Government thought it necessary to introduce a Coercion Bill. The Irish Members said that it was not at all required, and in the end they were proved to be right; and in that case it would certainly have been the convenience. If the Bill had been referred to Irish Members, they would have left nothing of it to be reported to the House save the title; but the result would have been that the Minister of the time being would still be of opinion that a Coercion Bill should be passed. The scheme of his hon. Friend (the O'Conor Don) was one which would, he believed, fail the moment they began to work it. There was a flaw in it. If they wished that Ireland should be ruled intelligibly— according to Irish ideas—then there was only one way to do it. If they rejected that, they could not have this scheme of Grand Committees. He trusted that the Committee would not be composed of those well versed in the official ways of the House, but that they would have Representatives upon it of opinion from all sides of the House, whether they had long been Members or not. Scotland and Ireland ought to be very fully represented. English Members had the power to act just as they pleased with Scotch and Irish Business; and, therefore, if they were now going to introduce new rules, it was only fair that the cause of the sister country, which was weak in comparison to England, should be fully considered.

said, he thought the whole tone of the discussion showed that hon. Members were thinking of something more serious than the appointment of this Select Committee. For his part, he could not but believe that if it had not been for the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last Session they would not have had that proposal at that moment. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government had proposals to make which would materially promote the Business of the House, those proposals should be made on the authority of the Government. The present Government, whether rightly or wrongly, had achieved the reputation of referring nearly every question to a Committee, with a view of deriving an authority or obtaining an assistance in the formation of an opinion which the country was entitled, to ask for at the hands of the Government itself. He was glad to learn that this Committee, if it was appointed, as he presumed it would be, was intended really to consider the best mode of facilitating the Business of the House and not indirectly to consider the conduct of individual Members. He had heard very little allusion to-night to anything which took place during the last Session of Parliament, and he hoped that this Committee would not find it necessary to enter into that matter; because, what-ever might be thought of the vigour or persistency of the course of conduct of certain hon. Members which had received a distasteful name, he would only remind the House that hitherto that very course of conduct had been considered a weapon of great value in this country, and both sides had had recourse to it. They might appoint these Committees over and over again, and nothing would come of it, because the Business of that House was greater than the House could manage. An hon. Gentleman (Mr. Anderson) had complained of the speeches in the House being too long. As a general rule, sitting there as he did constantly, he did not think that was true, and he derived instruction from the speeches of hon. Members, who expressed themselves in intelligent and generally in dignified and business-like language. The proposal to refer Business to a Committee or a bureau, and the proposal to limit the speeches, were direct invasions of the privileges and intentions of Parliament. The sole object of Parliament was not to pass laws, but to promote discussion and to ventilate public questions. It certainly was not the wish of the majority of the Irish Members to obstruct or to interfere with the legitimate Business of Parliament. If their proposals were adopted in their integrity they would still form a portion of this great Assembly, and they would come there to assist in its deliberations upon all matters of external policy, and it would be the height of folly on their part to make the House of Commons the laughing-stock of the nation. He therefore rejoiced that no reference had been made to what passed in the last Session. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) when he was interested in a particular Bill—the Divorce Bill—received the ap- plause of his Friends for the kind of obstruction he offered to its passing, and he spoke 72 times in the course of the discussion of the Bill. They know that in the discussion on the Army Purchase Bill, and on the Ballot Bill, many hon. Members were perpetually obstructing in a way which was supposed to do them great credit. He did not approve of the proposal that the House should be divided into Committees of different nationalities, for that would not got rid of the demand of the Irish people for self-government. He hoped great care would be exercised in selecting this Committee, and that Representatives would be taken from all sides of the House, whether they had long been Members of the House or not.

said, the proposals of the hon. Member for Eos-common (the O'Conor Don) were exceedingly ingenious; but he thought when they came to be put to the test they would be found impracticable. It would be an insurmountable difficulty to adjust the strength of political parties in Grand Committees; and, as Sir Erskine May said, nothing would be gained by resorting to them if they were to be Committees of the Whole House under another name. It would be difficult so to constitute Grand Committees that all Members would be upon them who ought to be, or so that a Member would not be in one Committee when he was wanted in another. For these reasons he feared that Grand Committees would not work consistently with Government by Party. The proposed Committee ought to pay some attention to the nomination of Select Committees, from which Members with special qualifications were sometimes excluded because they had not influence enough with the Whips, who were naturally governed by Party considerations.

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was justified in asking for a Committee, because the Business of the House was growing, and becoming greater than it could discharge satisfactorily, and it was the duty of every Member to offer any suggestion which he thought would promote the transaction of Public Business. But, as Members who were not on the Committee could not send their suggestions upstairs, he was afraid its inquiries would not obviate a discussion in the House when the Committee made its Report. While he would not say Grand Committees could not be formed so as to promote the despatch of Business, he deprecated the constitution of them by-nationalities, believing that, as far as was practicable, the three Kingdoms ought to be legislated for on the same principles and in the same Bills. Last Session time was lost by having separate Prison Bills for each of the three Kingdoms; and this Session there would be a corresponding gain in passing the Factories and Workshops Bill, because definition clauses made it applicable to Scotland and Ireland. With regard to Business on Wednesdays, he suggested that instead of a Bill being talked out, a division should be taken upon it at half-past 5 o'clock. In that way they would get rid of the Bill, if it were an objectionable one. Of late years there had been an increase of Motions on going into Committee of Supply, so that Government had practically lost the Fridays; and it might be well to give the Government two Fridays in each month. It was worth considering whether there ought to be any discussion on going into Committee on a Bill unless there were Notice of an Instruction to the Committee, and whether, in Committee, the privilege of speaking twice on the same Motion should be restricted to the Member in charge of a Bill. If alterations of that character were carried out, much time might be saved; Government would have greater opportunities of proceeding with their measures, and hon. Members would get into the country at a much earlier period of the year than they could now do.

said, that his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) had anticipated him in one of the suggestions he was about to submit to the House—namely, that Members should not be allowed to speak an unlimited number of times on every question in Committee. If hon. Gentlemen would consider what they wished to express there could be no difficulty or inconvenience in their doing so in one speech. He also thought some limit should be placed upon the power of moving Amendments in Committee. Nothing could be more inconvenient or prejudicial to the framework of a Bill than the practice of starting Amendments on the spur of the moment, of which no Notice had been previously given. Everyone conversant with legal documents know how necessary it was to well consider any alterations introduced into them with reference not only to the context, but the general character of the document; and he thought that Members might fairly be required to give Notice of their Amendments to Bills on the Paper before proposing them in Committee. Without altogether agreeing with the hon. Member for Eos-common (the O'Conor Don), he thought that the Business might be materially facilitated by the reference of Bills to Select Committees, properly constituted, and such scandals as had been referred to with regard to the progress of Bills in Committee of the Whole House would be prevented He had been a Member of the Committee on the Endowed Schools Act, and ventured to think that the result of their labours had been most satisfactory, and if a similar course had been taken at first with the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill, many useful Amendments might have been made in it, and the labours of the House to amend it in a subsequent Session would have been rendered unnecessary.

said, it appeared to him that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had directed his attention to those matters which seemed to the right hon. Gentleman to be the most serious evils under the present system, and if they were to couple with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Motion any of the Amendments on the Paper they would not do any good; it would, on the other hand, be unwise to agree to any Amendment, as it would fetter the right hon. Gentleman in regard to what he promised to do in placing his views and those of the Government before the Committee. The fact was the House had on previous occasions collected evidence ad nauseam on this subject, and all they now wanted were some practical suggestions for consideration by the Committee, and adoption by the House. He was of opinion that the hon. Member for Roscommon, and other hon. Members who had placed Amendments on the Paper, would render great service to the House by not pressing them to a division.

said, that from the course of the debate two things were evident—in the first place, it was evident that the House was disposed to agree to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the appointment of the Committee; and, in the second, that it was not disposed to enter into an exhaustive discussion of the different Amendments on the Paper. Last Session the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he and his Colleagues would consider, during the Recess, the recommendations which had been made by Select Committees in previous years; that they would consult the authorities of the House, and be prepared to submit proposals to the House for their consideration this Session. He (Mr. Dod-son) understood from that, and he hoped, that at the commencement of this Session the right hon. Gentleman would come down to the House and make some direct propositions to the House. He had no very great expectations of the results of a Committee appointed to consider the Business of the House. There had been many Committees on the subject, but the fruits of their exertions had not been very great. He gathered from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman that the Government had considered the recommendations of the previous Committees, and that they had formed in their own minds a programme which they wished to submit not directly to the House, but to this Committee. He understood that the Government were prepared to undertake the conduct of the Committee, and that they would supervise and be responsible for its management. He did not, therefore, think it would be reasonable for the House not to accede to such a proposal. That being the case, and the terms of the Motion being wide enough to admit of the consideration, not only of the programme of the Government, but of any proposals that might be submitted aliunde by Members of the Committee, no advantage would be gained by the acceptance of any of the Amendments on the Paper. Neither could the suggestions that had been made be accepted as Instructions to the Select Committee without ample discussion. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Anderson) who suggested the suspension of Bills from one Session to another was not, perhaps, aware that the subject had been fully considered already. It had been considered three times—by two strong Com- mittees of this House in 1848 and 1861, and by a Joint Committee of both Houses in 1869; and each had reported unanimously against such a proposal, He would mention one objection. A Bill might pass this House which the other House of Parliament might dislike, but might not be prepared to reject or abandon. It would be an easy alternative to suspend it for another Session. Again, those who had charge of a Bill might, having had the Recess to reflect upon it, get such Amendments as would alter its whole character introduced in the House of Lords; but, when the Bill came back, the House of Commons would not have power to debate those Amendments fully, but would have simply to accept or reject them as Lords' Amendments. Another objection was that this was a matter which affected the three Estates of the realm, and could not be dealt with except by Act of Parliament. He did not think that the suggestion that no Amendments of which Notice was not given should be received was practicable. Very frequently the adoption of an Amendment on the Paper rendered the adoption of other Amendments necessary of which no Notice could possibly be given. With regard to Grand Committees, the House had better leave the Select Committee free and unbiassed. He would wish, however, to ask how were these Grand Committees to be appointed? Were they to be large Select Committees, appointed as Select Committees usually were, with an equal number of Members taken from each side? If so, the majority of the House would sacrifice itself. Then, if the Grand Committees were to consist of Gentlemen specially conversant with particular subjects—such as legal Members for legal matters, commercial Members for commercial matters, agricultural Members for agricultural matters, and so on—it would infallibly happen that the majority of the House would in two or three Committees, at least, find themselves in a minority, with no chance of passing the Bills they desired. If, on the other hand, they were to have Open Committees, and Members were allowed to vote in all the Committees, the minority in Committee A might, when a division was imminent, send for the Members of Committee B to come and vote, on the understanding that they by-and-by would do a similar good turn. The effect of that would be to establish a system of logrolling, which would be most injurious to the character of Parliament. He did not wish to express an opinion upon anyone of the Amendments on the Paper, or upon the suggestions which had been ventilated; and if he had used arguments against any one of them it was merely to show hon. Members that their views were not so easy to carry into practice as they seemed to suppose. The House was not in a mood to discuss any of these proposals fully, and therefore it would be bettor to leave all questions to be dealt with by the Committee, the reference to which would be in very general terms, and it would be open to the Committee to do what might seem to them to be right, and to make their own suggestions to the House in their Report. In his view, they should leave the Committee free and unfettered in its action.

thought that Grand Committees, limited as proposed by the hon. Member for Roscommon, would be dangerous and would not work as well as Committees of the Whole House, composed of Members from the different parts of the United Kingdom. As a Scotch Member, he had great confidence in the fairness of English and Irish Members in relation to Scotch Business; and having watched the course of Scotch legislation for 40 years, he thought his country deeply indebted to English and Irish Members. If Grand Committees were appointed, there would be danger, where money was involved, of Irish Members favouring their own country, and of Scotch Members favouring theirs. For instance, last Session there was a Bill before the House which dealt with the salaries of the Chairmen of Counties in Ireland. It was referred to a Select Committee, and he was surprised to see how quickly it came back with their salaries raised to £1,400 a-year, and the Clerks of the Peace to £600, £700, and £900 a-year; and, on asking an Irish Member how it was managed to get a Bill passed so rapidly with such a Schedule, he replied that the Committee was composed of 20 Irish Members and three English Members. He did not think it would have got through so easily if there had been more English or Scotch Members on the Committee. At the same time, he wished it to be understood that for this he did not blame Ireland or the Irish. He was sure if it had been a Scotch measure of the same sort, and there had been an equal proportion of Scotch Members on the Committee, the same thing would have happened. There should be sufficient local knowledge in the Committee to explain every particular thoroughly, and there should be an impartial jury, consisting of about two-thirds or more of the number of the Committee, to give an impartial judgment.

said, there was a Scotch Roads and Bridges Bill coming before the House, and also an Irish Grand Juries Bill. Now, he should not be able to understand the former question, and what he would probably do would be to vote with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren); and probably the hon. Member would in a similar way follow him in the vote on the Grand Juries question. Neither of them could fully understand a Bill referring to the local affairs of the country of the other. It would be well if the Government did not introduce more Business than could be really expected to pass during the Session. The system of trying to force the Business through in a hurry, without proper discussion, wasted more time than all the other systems put together. The result of such a method was that a Bill passed into law in one Session needed re-consideration and amendment in perhaps two or three following Sessions; and the complaint naturally followed that there were too many Acts of Parliament upon a particular subject, and then came the necessity for a Consolidation Bill. The plain result of all this was that, instead of one Bill being properly considered in a reasonable time, the whole affair occupied about four times as long as was really necessary. There was another point of consideration too—namely, the incapacity of the Government to estimate with any degree of accuracy the length of time that should be occupied on certain discussions. For instance, on a night last Session, when the Budget was introduced, the Government wished that the Public Worship Bill should be dealt with the same night, the result actually being a four nights' discussion upon what was estimated by them to occupy only one night. With the experience of the right hon. Gentleman, he ought to be able to estimate what time should be occupied in a discussion according to the circumstances of the House. He further thought that a large majority of the Members of each Committee ought to be of the same nationality as the measures brought under its consideration. If the Committee proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were appointed, it would probably report towards the end of the Session. No further action would in all likelihood be taken in the matter, and thus another exemplification would be afforded of the manner in which the time of the House was wasted.

referring to a remark that had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said, he fully appreciated the advantages of getting into Committee of Supply; but they ought to have facilities for getting on with that Supply by an improvement in the mode of stating the requirements of the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had last year promised that if he (Sir George Balfour) formulated his suggestions on this point he would take them into consideration. He had done so, and he begged to remind the right hon. Gentleman of his promise. It was only the portions of the Estimates which were different from those of the previous year that excited discussion. Following the example of the French Chamber, the House ought to have laid before it all the different sums and different changes in the Estimates. They could then vote the Estimates as the French Chamber did, with much greater usefulness to the country than they did at present.

said, he feared he could not congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the mode he had adopted of bringing this subject under the consideration of Parliament. He wanted them to refer the whole question to a Select Committee, and he had done so without including in the slightest degree the nature of the proposal which he intended to submit to the Committee. He did not think that that form of proposal was likely to save any time, such as it was suggested to do. After the Committee had duly sat upon the question they would come to the House with magnificent conclusions and recommendations, without in the slightest degree showing upon what these conclusions were founded. He did not think sufficient justice had been done to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Eos-common (the O'Conor Don), which contemplated placing Public Business of various kinds in the hands of Committees composed of those Members of the House who were best able, from their local knowledge and experience, to deal with it. Whatever might be the decision of the House upon it, he would remind hon. Members that Home Rule represented Irish nationality; and if it were known in the popular constituencies of Ireland that Home Rule did not represent Irish nationality, they would see very little of Home Rule Members on those benches. What-ever was done, therefore, with the Resolution of his hon. Friend, he could not expect that Irish Members would abandon the national demand they had insisted on putting forward; and until that demand was conceded in a proper spirit, they could not say that their mission had been fulfilled. The bureau system of France gave the conduct of Public Business to the men most competent to deal with it; and the Amendment of his hon. Friend would hand it over to those best qualified by local knowledge and experience for dealing with it. As the Business of the House grew and accumulated, new and more extended machinery was required for disposing of it. Great social and political problems arose every day; and as Parliament undertook to grapple with them, it was useless for that House to attempt to retain its old machinery, which, though it answered very well 25 years ago, was now completely obsolete. He, therefore, urged the House to adopt the hon. Member's Amendment, and thus, while relieving themselves from the pressure of Business, make a concession to the national feelings of Ireland. His experience of modern Parliaments told him that it was impossible for anyone but the Government to succeed in passing measures through the House, the consequence of which was that the Government turned aside from its Executive duties, which should more properly belong to it, and turned to the duties which belonged to the Parliament. Whatever might be said about the Constitution of the United States—and he would not say that it was superior to the British Constitution—but whatever might be said of its defects, it was at least free from the difficulties to which he had called attention. It had no Ministerial responsibility in any way. The prevailing majority in Congress, whatever it might be, was the only body responsible for legislation. He regretted that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Nowdegate) should have deprecated discussion at this stage of the numerous Amendments now before the House, stating that the Select Committee would be sure to consider them. The reason he should like all the proposed Amendments added to the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that they represented the conclusions of Gentlemen who had devoted some attention to this question, find they also represented the labour and thought which these Gentlemen had given to these proposals. If the Select Committee would deal with these, it would prevent the necessity of going all over the discussion again. But if they merely appointed a Committee, saying in "general" terms that they had to consider the whole question of Public Business, and come down to the House with their bare decisions, he would undertake to say that would be as barren and fruitless in its results as had been those Committees which had previously sat, and they would find themselves a few years on in precisely the same position as they now occupied.

moved to add at the end of the original Motion, the words—

"And whether the endeavour of the Imperial Parliament to deal with the legislative requirements of the three Kingdoms as to local affairs has not been a serious obstacle to the due and expeditious discharge of the general Business of the House."

He believed that a direction of the kind which the Amendment contemplated would not be found to be superfluous or irrelevant. On the contrary, it seemed to him to be required in order to bring out of the appointment of any Committee the good which they all desired. When he remembered how earnestly and how often, on both sides of the House, the complaint had been made that the Irish demand for local legislation was not understood, it appeared to him that an Amendment like the present afforded an admirable opportunity for the Members of the present Government, and of the Administration which had preceded it, acquiring the information which they had so frequently declared they desired with reference to the conduct of measures connected with Ireland, and therefore he did not think there could be any difficulty in accepting it. There was reason to fear that the Committee proposed was only likely to have the result of previous Committees, and prove abortive. He felt that there was a very strong necessity to add to the general proposition—to add something specific on that general ground. He felt that a specific recommendation was necessary to bring about that good that was required. Speaking as an Irish Member, he could say that the requirements of Irishmen were not understood, and this Amendment would give the requisite information wanted. He maintained that, if the Amendment were passed, the effect would be to direct the attention of the Committee to the nature of Irish demands and the concessions which, with all due regard to Imperial unity, might be made in the way of satisfying the people of the sister Kingdom. The unimpeachable and impartial evidence which would be adduced would tend to remove the ignorance of hon. Members as to what it was the Irish people required, and no doubt a practical and business-like solution would, in consequence, be found for the Irish difficulty. The terms of the Amendment were strictly moderate, and they answered all that could reasonably be required. They asked that the Committee should take into consideration—

"Whether the endeavour of the Imperial Parliament to deal with the legislative requirements of the three Kingdoms as to local affairs has not been a serious obstacle to the due and expeditious discharge of the general Business of the House."

The Amendment was to review the course of legislation on general and local affairs, and in that review they might have a guide for the future working of legislation. He did not intend to speak further in support of this Amendment than he thought it his duty to do; but he would remind the House that they were always asked as to what were the local requirements of Ireland, and this Amendment would give what was local in contradistinction to what was considered Imperial. It only carried out the recommendations repeatedly made by English Members.

in seconding the Amendment, said, he regarded the House of Commons as the most perfect machine for doing Business that the ingenuity of man could invent; but unfortunately the internal arrangements of Parliament prevented it from efficiently dealing with Irish affairs. He had, therefore, been very much struck with the necessity for some such inquiry as that indicated in the Amendment; for, if Irish Business was to be properly attended to, he really believed it would occupy the entire attention of this House for two or three years. They saw the machinery for doing the work; but unfortunately the Irish Members were not allowed to work, and the English Members were taken up with matters of more importance. He thought that they ought to consider whether the English or the Irish Business could not be disposed of by Grand Committees or otherwise. It was thought the Motion was owing to what was termed the "obstruction policy" of Irish Members; but he thought that if something was done in the proposed Committee, as suggested by this Amendment, they might find some solution of the question. He emphatically said that Ireland was neglected in that House, because the English Members thought of the more important affairs connected with the other portions of the United Kingdom. He was convinced that if the question proposed in the Amendment was discussed, some light would be thrown on the difficulty.

fearing that the Committee would not have time to deal satisfactorily with the question relating to the conduct of Irish. Business, would recommend his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Donnell) to withdraw the Amendment.

said, that, with the permission of the House, he would content himself with having raised the question, and would withdraw the Amendment.

rose to move the Amendment which appeared on the Paper in his name, when—

decided that he could not move it, as he had already spoken to the question before the House.

in rising to move—

"That, except for a Money Bill, no Order of the Day or Notice of Motion be taken after half-past Twelve of the clock at night, with respect to which Order or Notice of Motion a notice of opposition or amendment shall have been printed in the Notice Paper, or if such Notice of Motion shall only have been given the next previous day of sitting, and objection shall be taken when such Notice is called."

said, that the House would see that his Motion was of a limited character, and differed entirely from that of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in being the recommendation, not of an individual, but of the Select Committee of 1871. It had in its favour their unanimous opinion, the experience of the past six years, and it would materially conduce to the comfort and convenience of hon. Members. He introduced it in no Party spirit, because he knew it was supported by many hon. Members opposite as well as by hon. Members on his own side of the House. All he asked of the House was that it would renew temporarily and until the Committee had reported the Resolution which had been popular for some time. It had been originally proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), and had since been continued on several occasions, being re-enacted, when it was last challenged, by 185 votes to 23. He was told that there was some little revulsion of feeling on the part of hon. Members, partly on account of the "obstruction" that had been practised dur- ing the last Session, and partly because the Rule had been abused. It was true that it had been discovered that since 1871 the House had sat on an average a little later than before; but, at all events, the Rule had been productive of much practical convenience, especially by the certainty which it gave that Opposed Business would not be taken after half-past 12. The principle was a sound one, and he would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), which came to much the same thing—namely, that the names of three hon. Members should be put to every Notice of Opposition. He begged, without prejudice to the inquiries of the Select Committee, to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

said, there was much dissatisfaction in past Sessions with the Half-past Twelve rule, and it was a fact that the House had sat many more hours after midnight in the six years since this rule had been in operation than in the six years previously. It was therefore a fit question to be considered by the Committee the House had just agreed to appoint. The rule was used vexatiously to prevent Business coming on, for a debate which otherwise would close about midnight was sometimes prolonged in order that the rule might be enforced against the commencement of another discussion. This was an indirect way of closing the Business of the House; and he thought they should say by way of Standing Order, if at all, that no Opposed Business should be taken after a certain hour. He would therefore move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

said, that the question was a very small one; only what they should do in the interval before the Committee reported, and, under the circumstances, the fair thing to do was to withdraw both the Motion and the Amendment, and leave matters in statu quo.

thought the proposal could hardly be said to leave matters in statu quo, since this rule had only been enacted for three or four years past, and then merely as a Sessional Order. He never could understand why the rule should be supported; like some other things of modern invention, it was not quite as good as the customs of their forefathers. There was no doubt that this rule had two very considerable disadvantages. In the first place, it practically put a stop to all legislation by private Members. That might be considered by some people desirable, but was one undoubted effect of the rule. Only last Session he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had carried the second reading of the Colonial Marriages Bill by a considerable majority against the opposition of the Government. But no effort of his could procure an opportunity even for the further discussion of that Bill at its next stage at any period during the Session, and such a state of things was a scandal to a Legislative Assembly. Under the old system he should have agreed with the opponents of the Bill to take it at a late hour on some particular night, and so settle the question one way or the other. But this could not be done under the Half-past Twelve rule. Another great objection was the encouragement given by this rule to Members to talk upon some measures to which there was no opposition in order to prevent some Bill coming on before 12.30 A.M.; and he believed that if it were possible to obtain a Return of the time wasted during the Session in this manner between the hours of 11 A.M. and 12.30 A.M., the result would be somewhat surprising. It would surely be far better to leave the rule to the consideration of the Select Committee.

congratulated his right hon. Friend upon the true old-world Man-of-Kent ring of his sentiments; but he reminded the House that for all practical purposes the question had been taken out of their hands. In the good old times, to which his right hon. Friend looked back so fondly, the late nights were few, and then they were really late, while the public was content to wait for its reports even till the second day. Now science and competition had changed all this state of things, and the revolution was consummated by the system of early newspaper trains. Whether the House made this rule or not, the gentlemen of the Press in the Gallery had of inevitable necessity set up their Half-past Twelve or One o'clock rule, since the necessity of writing out and of printing in time for the newspaper trains rendered it impossible to report debates after midnight. He would support the original Motion.

expressed the hope that the House would accept the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Mr. Mowbray). He had no doubt that, taking Business generally, the Half-past Twelve rule had been an improvement. Formerly the House might be found sitting up to 1 and 2 o'clock in the morning passing important measures, the deliberations on which were never reported—the Members themselves not being in a condition for maturely deliberating upon them. He had himself heard two most important statements by present and past Lords of the Admiralty delivered at such an hour that it was impossible to give more than a line or two to them in the next morning's papers. They had no right to dip their hands in the public purse when the reporters were away from their duty. Those who objected to the rule were mostly private Members who had charge of Bills which they were unable to push through. Now, although he sympathized with independent opinion, he did not think it desirable that private legislation, which was often crude and pernicious and fussy, ought to have undue facilities given to it. The rule, therefore, tending, as it did, to prevent mischievous measures from slipping through after half-past 12, when many hon. Members had gone home, was a useful one and ought to be maintained.

in support of the rule, cited the following 11 names of old and experienced Members of this House, headed by Mr. Lowe, who, as Members of the Committee of 1871, had declared in its favour: —Mr. Lowe (Chairman), Mr. Bouverie, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Dodson, Mr. C. Forster, Sir George Grey, Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen, Mr. Newde-gate, Mr. Wilson Patten, Mr. Rathbone, and Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.—[See 3 Hansard, cciv.]

who had given Notice of the following Amendment:—

"That such notice of opposition shall be removed from the paper on the Clerk at the Table being assured that the Member in whose name it stands is absent from the House, and has been so for two successive sittings,"

said, that as he had put this Amendment to the Resolution on the Paper, it would perhaps be convenient that he should say a few words on the subject now. Having listened to the strong speeches of the hon. Members for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope) and Burnley (Mr. Rylands), it did not appear to him that they bore on the Half-past Twelve rule at all. In reference to speeches delivered to thin and sleepy Houses which were not reported in the newspapers the next morning, he would like to point out that the Half-past Twelve rule did not apply at all; because if, when half-past 12 came, they were engaged in Supply, they could go on until any hour, or if they were engaged in an important discussion affecting the Admiralty, or anything else, they could go on until any hour. The only remedy would be to stop the whole Business at half-past 12, if the hon. Members for Burnley and Cambridge wished to stop all that could not be reported in the newspapers. He was strongly in favour of early hours, but the Half-past Twelve rule had not been successful. From a Return moved for by the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) it appeared that in the six years previous to the Half-past Twelve rule the House sat for 642 hours after midnight; but in the six years after the rule the House sat 724 hours, thus instead of getting earlier closing they got later closing. There was not the slightest doubt an immense amount of time was wasted on account of the Half-past Twelve rule. No doubt many speeches made after half-past 11 were not made in the interests of the Business then be-fore the House; but were made solely for the purpose of preventing Bills coming on before half-past 12. It would be an evil day if the House came to the conclusion that private Members' legislation was mischievous. All great measures of reform had been at some period the measures of private Members, and it would be very unfortunate if discouragement were thrown on their right; but in any case no single Member ought to have power of preventing any private Member from passing a Bill. He had a Bill last Session, and only one Member in the House was against it, but that one Member prevented him from getting it through until, close to the end of the Session. This might be done from conscientious motives, but it might be a mere crotchet by a single hon. Member. An hon. Member might put down opposition to a Bill on the Paper, and might go to Italy or Scotland, or anywhere, and could still delay the progress of the Bill, thus controlling the proceedings of Parliament, while really not attending Parliament at all. If the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) would amend his Amendment to admit the words "to be renewed weekly," he would accept it; but he wished particularly some safeguard that the opposition should be a real one, and that the Mover should be at any rate in London and not in Italy. If anything could be suggested to meet the case he had mentioned, he should be content without moving his Amendment.

expressed a hope that the Motion of his right hon. Friend would be adopted. He did not think that the arguments of the hon. Member for Glasgow were of any avail. What they had to consider was whether the Half-past Twelve o'clock rule interfered with the Business of the House or the convenience of hon. Members. For his part, he was of opinion that it had been a great benefit to the House. It might be that the House had sat a greater number of hours during the last six Sessions than it did during the six previous Sessions; but the reason of that fact would be plain to all who remembered the Notices of Motion that had been given, the Bills that had been introduced, and how the time of the House had been occupied during the last six Sessions. When he and his Friends sat at the other side of the House they took good care that the Estimates should not be proceeded with beyond midnight, and they were all aware that great debates were invariably adjourned at or about 12 o'clock. He asked the hon. Members who sat below the Gangway on the Opposition side whether they would not take advantage of the non-adoption of the rule—and rightly—to bring forward their measures at any hour of the night or morning? Without such a rule as that proposed by his right hon. Friend the House would be compelled to sit very much later than it would if the Motion was adopted.

said, the incessant labour and fatigue of watchful opposition was greatly relieved by the introduction of the Half-past Twelve rule. During his Parliamentary career the Government of the day at one time introduced a number of measures affecting Ireland which were extremely objectionable to Irish Members, and the then Secretary for Ireland refused to name an hour when he should bring them on. Therefore they had to sit till long summer mornings to be ready to enter their protest against those Bills. In the interests of hon. Members of the House it was most desirable that such a rule should exist. He thought, however, that it might be abused if in order to put off a Bill which stood second the first Bill was unnecessarily talked out. If that was made a frequent practice it was the thing which should endanger the Half-past Twelve rule. He trusted, on behalf of the independent Member, who profited most by the rule, that such a thing would not often occur. He agreed with the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) that the opposition which would prevent a Bill being brought on after half-past 12 should be bonâ fide and earnest opposition. He was not prepared to say how this could be effected, but it was not a fair use of the Forms of the House when one hon. Member gave Notice of opposition and then left the House or the country, thinking it impossible for the Bill to pass. He should cordially support any proposal to ensure that the opposition should be of an earnest and bonâ fide character.

asked the House to consider whether when, on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a Resolution had already been passed for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the whole question of the Business of the House, it was wise to weight the Committee with a prejudged opinion on a matter of this kind. ["No, no!"] The passage of such a rule as the one now proposed must inevitably weight the Committee, and it was idle to say it did not.

said, he could not agree with the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bristowe), that the decision of the House upon the question now before it would prejudice the action of the Committee. The House having several times agreed to a like Session Order to that proposed, its opinion was already known in reference to it. They had been told that under the Half-past Twelve o'clock rule the House had sat a greater number of hours than it did in Sessions when the rule did not exist, and that might be quite true; but they had no means of judging what would have been the case under the old system. Those who, by their official position, had to remain in the House until a late hour, and who could form an impartial judgment on the subject, felt that, even if the hours of sitting had not been largely reduced, a great boon had been conferred by the rule upon hundreds of hon. Members who, by its means, were able to go home instead of being compelled to remain until all hours of the morning to see whether certain Business was to be proceeded with or not. The rule did not apply to proceedings in Committee in the case of Bills in which Progress had previously been reported, and those proceedings, carried on to a late hour, had certainly not been in the highest degree satisfactory or creditable to the House, and had certainly not increased the value of the legislation so carried on. Setting aside all other questions, for this reason alone, he should be exceedingly sorry were the rule to be allowed to lapse during the present Session. He did not think the Committee to be appointed to consider the conduct of the Business of the House would be greatly influenced by the fact that a Sessional Order of the kind had been renewed; while, on the other hand, if the passing of the rule were to be delayed until the Committee reported favourably upon it some two months hence, much injustice would be done to those private Members whose Bills, by the mere acci- dent of the ballot, did not come on until the latter part of the Session. He must, therefore, give his voice in favour of the Motion.

said, he felt himself at considerable disadvantage in addressing the House after the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, especially as an appeal had been made to the feelings of a large number of hon. Members on the ground that, by passing the rule, they might be able to go away after half-past 12 and neglect the Business of the House; but he could not concur in the remarks of the hon. Gentleman. He agreed with the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) that the matter was one which should be left in the hands of the Select Committee about to be appointed. He reminded the House that there could be no fear that the Government could bring on important measures after a late hour, inasmuch as it was the practice of the Members of the Government to state early in the evening after what hour they would not proceed with their measures. He thought, from the experience they had had, that the conduct of Business had not been greatly improved by the adoption of the rule; on the contrary, it often led to long discussions on unimportant measures with the view of throwing measures of consequence over until after half-past 12 o'clock, so as to preclude their being taken on those occasions. The only result of the rule was to set up for themselves a point of debatable ground which did not previously exist.

remarked that the House of Commons was certainly a very singlar Assembly, because he did not believe that there was another Legislative Assembly in the world which would seriously discuss the question whether it was right to bring on fresh important Public Business for discussion after half-past 12 o'clock at night. His only complaint was that the rule did not go far enough. If they had a rule that no new Business should be taken after 12 o'clock or half-past they would get through the work with much greater credit to themselves and more advantage to the country. A few years ago it was the custom of the Irish Secretary to introduce Bills habitually after 1 o'clock in the morning, and no assurance could be got that he would not bring them on after that time. The consequence was everybody had to wait until 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning on the chance of a discussion coming on on the particular subjects in which they were interested. They had the advantage, under the existing rule, of knowing that no important legislation could be thrust upon them by surprise; but notwithstanding, the rule was open to abuse on the part of the Government, and also on the part of private Members. For instance, hon. Members were accustomed to put their names down in opposition to a Bill when they never attended, and did not intend to attend the House. That was an unfair advantage which ought to be put down by the good sense and high honour of the House. It must be put down in such a manner as the hon. Member for for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) suggested.

Sir, we are discussing the Half-past Twelve rule upon its merits, and I think the discusssion may be well likened to the painter who put up a picture that anyone might point out its faults, and put up the same picture in order that its beauties might be noticed. The truth is, that you cannot conduct the Business of an Assembly, and certainly not such an Assembly as the House of Commons, merely by rules, and if Business is to be properly conducted you want something more than that—you want an actual agreement as to the spirit and manner in which you are to proceed. In regard to this rule, no one can doubt that it has many great advantages, because it enables hon. Gentlemen to know that certain measures they are interested in will not be brought on after a certain hour, and therefore they are enabled to leave the House if it is necessary for them to do so. The rule is not at all conducive to the conduct of Public Business. On the other hand, we cannot help seeing that this rule is frequently abused by hon. Members who give Notice of opposition to a Bill, and then go away, thus delaying the Bill for an indefinite time; it also leads to discussion being carried on, the effect of which is that Bills which should come on are crossed out. I must say, looking at the questions from both sides, it is very difficult indeed to say which has the advantage and which has the disadvantage, in the discussion. I have always desired my- self to promote early hours, and I have always endeavoured to promote certainty as to what Business was to be transacted. Now, this rule is brought forward with a double view of promoting early hours and certainty of Business. I trust that we shall be enabled to arrive at some conclusion by which we shall get rid of the evils under which we suffer at the present time. The question is whether we shall renew the rule for the present Session in the same manner as it had been renewed in past Sessions, or leave it until the Committee had reported on the question. I think that the Committee will consider very carefully the proposition as to the Half-past Twelve rule, and what modification it will be necessary to move in it; but the question is if the matter is left for the Committee what is to be done in the interim? There is no desire on the part of the Government to unduly press any conclusion on the House. So far as the Government is concerned, I own it is against rather than in favour of my own wishes to have this rule in operation; but, on the other hand, I believe that both in this debate and on past occasions, when attention has been called to this subject, a large majority of the House has approved of it. I believe the rule is one well in favour with the House. I therefore think that after such a recommendation we should renew that rule for the present Session with the view of its being carefully considered in Committee, and with a view to see whether there are any means of modifying it. Therefore, I shall be prepared to support the Motion of my right hon. Friend.

observed that after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and believing that a large majority of the House was in favour of the rule, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment, on the distinct understanding that the rule would come before the Committee without prejudice in any way.

said, that after the course which the debate had taken he would leave his Amendment to be considered by the Committee to the appointment of which the House had already agreed.

said, he should not press his Amendment.

said, that while he had great pleasure that the Government had introduced such an important measure as this at so early a period of the Session, he could not but express his disappointment in finding that the Bill, so far as he had examined it, appeared to be defective in some essential particulars. One point to which he desired to call attention had reference to the power which elected trustees would have in their own parishes for the management of the roads, and another had regard to the period of grace to be allowed before tolls were abolished. The Bill of last year provided that the general county trustees should consist of one member elected by each parish, and that the County Road Board should consist of those elected trustees, together with the landlords of the county. This was upon the lines of the private measures which had been passed through Parliament, but the Government now proposed to withdraw with the one hand what they professed to give with the other. The Bill now before the House provided that the only work which the elective trustees would have to perform would be to meet together and appoint a local committee for the management of the roads, in which the elected trustees were to be in a minority. It was provided that the District Board should not consist of more than one-half or loss than one-third of the elected trustees. This was really making a farce of the elected trustees. The ratepayers in each parish would not certainly meet together merely for the purpose of electing trustees, whose only duty would be to take part once a year in the appointment of a local county board. One of the great advantages under the private Acts which had been obtained for the abolition of tolls in Scotland consisted in this, that, under those Acts, distinct provision was taken for having the elective trustees largely interested in the maintenance of the roads. He asserted with confidence that in the counties where the private Acts to which he referred had been put into operation—in the county, for example, which he had the honour to represent (Forfarshire), and in the county of Aberdeen, where one of those measures had been in force for some time—the system which they provided had acted most successfully, and had been attended with the greatest advantage both to landlords and tenants. The elected trustees had taken a very active part in the management of the roads. They co-operated very heartily with the landlords in the matter, and he thought he might say on very considerable evidence, that this co-operation, in the opinion of the landlords themselves, had been of the very greatest advantage to the management. One of the greatest evils of the old system was that there were no trustees interested in the management of the roads, which was consequently very much left to officials, and no real supervision was kept up over the expenditure of the money. Now all this was changed. The elected trustees took a very active interest in the management of the roads, and they saw that value was obtained for money expended. Therefore, he thought it would be very unfortunate, both for landlords and tenants, if some clause were not provided for interesting tenant trustees in the management of the roads, as had been done in the private Bills recently passed. Another strong point was the long period of 10 years allowed for the expiration of the turnpike trusts. He understood, and he thought it was the general understanding, that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary promised last Session that expiring trusts should not be continued without some inquiry into them. Under this Bill, however, trusts which otherwise would die out in a year or two might be continued for 10 years. This was extremely objectionable, and if agreed to would be very disastrous to many turnpike roads in Scotland. What would be the policy of the trustees? The valuation of the road would be determined, no doubt, by the amount of interest which they had paid for the preceding few years, and therefore the trustees would be very much tempted to starve the roads in order to pay a higher interest upon the debt. The roads, consequently, would gradually get worse; and finally, when the turnpikes were abolished and the Act came into operation, the roads would be handed over to the new trustees in such a condition that they would require to be almost entirely re-made at very great expense. In his opinion, if the provision was retained, a clause should also be added that the roads should be handed over in good condition. If that were done, he had no doubt all the turnpikes would be abolished in a very short time. For these and other reasons explained last year, he hoped the Government would introduce some modification in the Bill. He would suggest that they should make inquiry into the private Acts in operation in Forfarshire and Aberdeenshire, and if it was found that the tenant trustees worked harmoniously, and to the perfect satisfaction of the landlords, that the Government should modify their Bill in that direction; otherwise he was afraid the roads would fall into the hands of officials with results that would be very unsatisfactory to all parties. He was not going to divide at that stage, but on another occasion he should take the sense of the House on what seemed to him very unjust—that the tenants should pay half the rates equally with the landlords, and yet not be allowed to have an equal voice with them in the expenditure of the money. He hoped it was not too late for the Government to take some stops in the matter before the Bill went into Committee.

said, he fully endorsed what his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire had said as to the expenditure upon the roads by trustees if another period of 10 years should be permitted before the expiration of the trusts. In England when Turnpike Acts expired they were referred to a Select Committee to inquire whether they should be continued; but as to Scotland a continuance Act had been passed every year, and the result was that the great ma- jority of the turnpikes in Scotland were continued in this way every year. Thus a simple suspension of the Bill for a Session would make these Acts lapse. He must say that the provisions of this Bill were not consistent with the promise made by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary last year, when he expressed an opinion that the system of continuing these trusts ought not to be persisted in.

observed that though the Bill had been introduced without remark by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, it was substantially the same as that brought in last year. He (Colonel Mure) was not prepared to offer any opposition to the second reading, but he wished to make one or two very short observations. He understood a Government official of high standing and great reputation had been employed to report upon this question, and especially as to the opposition offered by Renfrewshire and Lanarkshire with reference to the position of the city of Glasgow, no must express his regret that the Report had not been presented to Members, for the chances were that it contained a good deal that was new and very interesting about the road system in Scotland. As to the city of Glasgow, he believed the Government as to that would introduce some clause similar to that introduced as to bridges over which special traffic passed, and which would enable them to deal more satisfactorily with that city. There were many other matters which could be touched upon in Committee; but as he understood the rejection of the measure was to be moved on going into Committee, they would then have the opportunity of further expressing their views. He did hope, and that was his main object in rising, that the right hon. Gentleman would see fit to have this Report, to which he had alluded, placed in their hands.

said, he had looked into the Return which had been referred to, and it certainly contained details of considerable interest as to the action taken by the counties of Renfrew and Lanark. Whether the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary justified that action or not he could not toll, but the Return obtained by the hon. and gallant Gentleman showed that they had not been justified in their opposition, and that the statements made had been much exaggerated. In Lanarkshire the expenditure on turnpike and statute labour roads only amounted to 6d. in the pound on the valuation of the county; while in the city of Glasgow it was 4½d., and he did not think a difference of 1½d. on the rate per pound ought to be a barrier to a settlement between burgh and county. Renfrewshire was in a somewhat similar position. The annual valuation amounted to £1,177,471, and the total expenditure on roads was £28,426; an assessment of 6d. on that valuation would, therefore, produce £29,436, or more than equal to the whole of the present expenditure on both turnpike and statute labour roads. If the same details as had been furnished in the Return he alluded to had been obtained as to other counties, he believed it would have shown in these cases also that there was no proper ground for the opposition to the passing of the Bill. He begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman on his own behalf and that of every hon. Member for bringing in the Bill at so early a period in the Session, and he hoped he might think proper to introduce clauses to make the Bill better suited to the particular circumstances of each district. The hon. Member for Forfarshire had suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should examine the local Acts under which the roads in Forfarshire and Aberdeen were managed. They had enjoyed in his county for a very long period the advantages of a local Act, and indeed they were the first to have one abolishing tolls and statute labour. Under it the county was divided into districts, the trustees in each of which had power independently to levy assessments within itself. He trusted that the Lord Advocate would see his way to accept some modifications of the provisions of the Bill, as it then stood, in order to meet the case of the counties placed in the circumstances he had described. He had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would do so, and he believed that such modifications, if accepted, would be of great advantage to the community when this Bill became law.

said, he was rather surprised that the Lord Advocate should have introduced the Bill without any explanation. At the same time, they were so grateful to the Government for having brought in a Bill at so early a period of the Session— the great majority of Scotch Members being anxious that a good Road Bill should pass—that he would not make any serious complaint on that score. He entirely concurred in the observation of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), who had expressed regret that those Acts, which would otherwise have expired at an earlier period, were to be extended to a further existence of 10 years. That, he thought, was a great mistake; for, in his opinion, the period ought to have been considerably shortened. Not only were the Acts to be extended to so long a period; but, as he understood the question, whether the new Act should be adopted or not within that long period was to rest with the Commissioners of Supply, and the Commissioners of Supply were the most considerable landowners of the county. Therefore, the result would be that the decision of this great question would be left mainly in the hands of the extremely aristocratic element to the exclusion of small ratepayers. [The LORD ADVOCATE dissented.] As the right hon. and learned Gentleman shook his head, it was to be hoped he was about to explain that the matter would not be left in that way, and that the ratepayers as well as the aristocracy were to have something to do with the decision of this question after all. There was one important point which he did not see provided for in the Bill. There were some small burghs, little larger than villages, but with large roads passing through them. As these small burghs could not sustain the burden of keeping up these large roads, it was desirable that they should be united with the counties for that purpose. With regard to the former Bill there was a difficulty in providing for such cases; because he believed there were some small burghs that were not willing to unite with the counties, as they would be united under the Bill of last year. He thought some provision should be made in the present measure to meet cases of this description. But this Bill went to the other extreme. It appeared that no Royal or Parliamentary burgh, however small, would be exempted from the operation of the Bill. His impression was, that a small burgh with an important road running through it, would be placed in a difficult position if, as he understood, such burghs were not to unite with the counties for road purposes. He hoped that when the Bill went into Committee some proposal would be made to meet such cases.

said, he differed from one or two observations which had been made by hon. Members opposite, though, as he came from a district in which the abolition of tolls was not popular, perhaps he would not be expected to defend the Bill of the Government cordially. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay) on the assessments, he thought the hon. Member hardly understood the principle of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman appeared to be under the impression that the assessments would be levied in equal proportions in all parts of counties. That, however, was not the Bill as he himself read it. The Bill provided that counties being divided into districts and trusts, each trust would have to levy a rate for itself; and this being so, one trust might possibly have to levy a considerable rate, while another might levy a very small one. In that case the inference which the hon. Member for Falkirk seemed to draw from the Government proposal with regard to Lanarkshire and Ren-frewshire hardly held water. The extension of the period to 10 years struck him (Sir William Cuninghame) as one of the most valuable proposals in the Bill— because it gave time to counties and burghs to settle the very difficult and intricate negotiations which would be raised between themselves. He also thought that the clauses of the Bill were well devised which referred those points on which differences of opinion were likely to arise to arbitration, or finally to provisional orders. With respect to the observations of the hon. Member for Forfar (Mr. J. W. Barclay), it must be remembered that the landlords were much more permanently interested in the proper management of the roads than the tenants could be. Although they paid half of the assessment during the time they were on the farms, their interest in the matter ceased when they left their holdings. It was natural to suppose that those who had a permanent interest in the proper upholding of the roads would take care to look after them better than those who wore merely temporary occupiers. Practically, also, a largo portion of this assessment, which was paid by the tenants, would come out of the landlord's pocket, as part of, if not the whole of, the expense paid by the tenant would be deducted from the rent that the landlord received. Under these circumstances, the landlord would practically pay the larger part of the assessment. Therefore the landlord was entitled to a larger share in the representation on the County Board. It had been wisely and properly said that those who used the roads should pay for them. Looking at the Bill as brought forward by the Home Secretary, he certainly thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not himself hold that principle. Whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman did so or not, the Bill did not hold that principle—at all events, that would not be the effect of the Bill as he understood it. Take a farm 10 miles from a market and another five miles off, the two farms being in every other respect equal in value. On the principle that those who used the roads should pay for them, the most distant farm ought to pay twice as much as the near one. That, however, would not be the effect of the Bill. The farm nearer the market town would, in all probability, be on that part of the road whore the traffic over it was the heaviest. It would there fore have to pay a larger amount of assessment though it used the road the least. The reply probably would be that it could not be avoided, and that this was the case in all assessments such as the poor rates. He admitted that, but there was no alternative in the assessment to poor rates. It was not so in regard to roads. At all events, there was the alternative of tolls, and he contended if it was impossible to make an equitable assessment that they ought to continue to maintain tolls. One farther defect, and that a serious defect, he saw in the Bill. It appeared to him that of all Governments a Conservative Government ought to be the last to interfere with contracts between man and man. Take the case of a farm let for 21 years. The landlord let the farm to the tenant practically with the stipulation that the tenant should pay the whole cost of the upholding of the roads during the currency of his lease in the shape of tolls. He, for one, could not understand on what principle the Government could say in this Bill that in the future the landlord was to pay half of the expense. It appeared to him that this was taking part of the charge which the tenant had contracted to bear from his shoulders and placing it on those of the landlord. That was a principle as to which some amendment ought to be made in the Bill. In this respect the Government had gone in the face of the recommendation of the Royal Commission, which properly and equitably advised that during the currency of the leases the tenant should, as now, pay the whole of the charge.

said, he was sorry to see that so little improvement had been made in the Bill since last Session. Admitting that it bore evidence of great care having been taken on minor points, yet in the general features of the Bill it was just as bad as ever. At the close of last Session, two or three hon. Members opposed the renewal of the county trusts, and he remembered that one argument was that no trust that had expired in England was renewed without hearing evidence and having all questions settled; whereas in Scotland, trusts that had expired 20 years ago, and some 40 years ago, had been renewed without one word being heard on the subject. That was pressed very strongly. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said he saw the injustice at once, and said that this system would not be allowed here after, and he would take care that a change should be made bolero these Scotch trusts were renewed again. But what did this Bill do? It provided that all the principal clauses of the bad Acts which had expired should be renewed for 10 years, so that those trusts which wore now renewed year by year would be enforced for 10 years. With that clause in the Bill, he would far rather have had no Bill at all. As one of the Commissioners who had inquired into the subject, he knew that they recommended that the boundaries of burghs and counties should be fixed at once. But what did this Bill do? It provided that the body which was the most aristocratic in each county should take the initiative to set the Act going, and without their setting it going, the Act could not come into operation. Not only was this so, but a majority of two-thirds was required before the Act could be put into force. It was extremely difficult to get two-thirds of any public body to agree on any subject whatever, more especially local bodies, and if they had required a device to prevent the Bill from coming into operation that would be effectual. Burghs and large cities, such as Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, and Dundee, had no power to apply to the Secretary of State to put the Act in operation. Well, Edinburgh had three times as large a population as the county, and had three times the wealth of the county, and paid far more than three times the taxation of the county, and yet it had no power to put the Act in operation. He looked upon the Bill as it now stood as an incomplete measure. It was no enacting Bill at all. It was merely a permissive Bill, and yet was, in some respects, a prohibitory Bill. Many of the parishes of Scotland, as everybody knew, were very small. Yet each had two members, while the burghs under 10,000 were to have only one. A great deal was known in Scotland about the shutting-up of roads, so that the people durst not walk on them. In place of preventing that sort of thing, this Bill would make bad worse. In large towns like Glasgow and Edinburgh, there were perhaps 20 miles of road separating the burgh from the county, and in common fairness it would be admitted that the two should bear the burden equally. But what did the Bill say? That when the road was the boundary between county and burgh, the burgh should maintain it all. He could go further into details, but would merely revert again to the fact that the Bill could not be put into operation except by the Commissioners of Supply.

said, the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had touched on the blots of the Bill so well, that it was almost unnecessary for him to say anything, except that he agreed with what the hon. Member had said. The Bill would throw all the power into the hands of the landlords, for not only wa3 the initiative entirely with the Commissioners of Supply, who were the landlords, and their eldest sons, but the whole subsequent management would be the same. Tenants were almost entirely ignored, and ratepayers were also almost entirely ignored. That was a blot in this Bill which must be most carefully considered. Last year he had an Amendment down to make the trusts better by making them to consist of one-third landlords, one-third tenants, and one-third ratepayers, and he should this year move Amendments to the same effect.

said, he was very glad the Government had introduced this Bill, and he was certainly prepared to give it his support. Last year he laid one or two Amendments to the Bill upon the Table, the effect of which was to enable counties which had no Bills of their own to adopt portions of it. It was particularly useful to counties which had bridges in common. Last year his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate agreed to these Amendments; and he trusted he would permit this Bill—not the whole Bill, but such portion of the Bill as the Commissioners might agree upon, to be incorporated instead of the whole Act. That was the principal Amendment, he suggested, so far as regarded counties that had not Bills. Though he was prepared to support this Bill, he sympathized with the observations of the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr (Sir William Cuning-hame), about the burdens placed on land. If they would look at the Returns he got two years ago as to the financial accounts of Scotch counties, they would see what the assessments were. He would not trouble them with details, but in the county of Aberdeen, where the valuation of the county was £700,000 a-year, the cost that had been placed upon that county was £20,000 a-year. That was a very heavy assessment undoubtedly; but he was not prepared to maintain that the maintenance of roads was not a legitimate burden to put upon laud. He thought it was a legitimate burden; but, on the other hand, they so often found in this House burdens placed on the land which were not legitimate, that one was almost inclined to resist those which were legitimate. Whenever there was in this House any proposal to relieve the land, the invariable argument was that the landlords got their property with these burdens, which they must bear. That was an argument he had heard over and over again, when there was any proposal to relieve the land. What had Parliament done within the last six or seven years in Scotland? It had imposed an assessment for education—they would find in some counties it amounted to so much as 10d. in the pound, while the assessments for roads reached 7d. or 8d. a pound—and they were perpetually accumulating burdens on land, while there was never anything proposed, such as the Bill of his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), for doing away with church rates; but everybody was shocked at the proposal of relieving the land from not only the maintenance of the Church, but of relieving it of anything. Although he was not prepared to offer any opposition to this Bill, he hoped the Government would feel that having placed the burden of repairing roads entirely on the land, under the system they contemplated, they would relieve the landlords by throwing on other shoulders the maintenance of some of those county burdens.

thanked the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for introducing this Bill at so early a period. There were, no doubt, many great defects in the Bill which must be dealt with when it came into Committee. But he thought this was a Bill that could be passed in a proper shape, so as generally to please the people of Scotland. This roads and bridges matter had agitated Scotland for a great number of years past. He was quite sure when the Bill came into Committee, many of its provisions would be rectified. He had no doubt that the Lord Advocate would give them some statement in regard to the clauses of this Bill, which differed from that introduced last year, when the Bill came into Committee. He thought the Bill would generally be acceptable, with the Amendments that would be made on it in passing through Committee.

Sir, whilst it is very obvious, from the course of the discussion that has taken place tonight, that Scotch Members generally approve of the principle of this Bill, in so far as that principle consists of the abolition of tolls, and the maintenance of roads by an assessment upon owners and occupiers of land, it is equally obvious that in regard to some, and these not unimportant, details of the measure, there is a considerable amount of difference of opinion amongst Scotch Members; and in the course of this discussion it can hardly have failed to be remarked that what some hon. Gentlemen have selected as the leading defects of the Bill have been studiously dwelt upon by others as the prominent merits of the measure. I think it is rather unfortunate, seeing that there has been Notice given that at a future stage some attempt will be made to object to the principle of the Bill, that we should have been discussing nothing to-night except matters most proper for discussion in Committee of this House. Well, in regard to that which is the proper subject of discussion at this stage of the Bill—namely, its principle—we have only had one faint note of objection, not carried to any practical conclusion, by the hon. Member the Representative of the Ayr Burghs (Sir William Cuninghame). I do not intend to enter into a discussion upon these parts of the Bill which have been mooted to-night. I am quite aware that the measure will be discussed, and very fairly discussed, and I trust that after discussion in Committee the Bill will form a measure which will prove suitable to the wants of the people of Scotland. I know that the question as to the time when it should come into operation is a delicate one, but there are many considerations in connection with that point which must not be disregarded in disposing of the, question. There are counties in Scotland, many of them, which are very peculiar in their circumstances, and I can honestly say that if one were legislating for Aberdeen and Forfar alone, there are many difficult problems which must be dealt with in this Bill; but which, in the case of these counties, it would not be necessary to deal with at all. But there are mining and other counties north of the Tweed in which contracts have been entered into on the faith of certain existing arrangements, which would be prejudicially effected by the instant adoption of this Bill in a compulsory form, unless some stops wore taken to guard them against that disturbance. As to the question of tolls, I admit that that is a difficult subject, if it is to be put in the power of counties to postpone the adoption of the Bill. But these roads must in the meantime be provided for, because in Scotland we have not the power as you have in England of levying a local rate, and the result would be that the ratepayers, when the Bill was adopted, would find the roads useless, if the means of maintaining them were not to be had meanwhile by levying a toll. Then there is the question of the Road Board, which has been raised by the hon. Mem- ber for Forfar (Mr. J. W. Barclay). I do not intend to argue that question with him to-night, but I wish to point out to the House that the functions and character of that Board are not precisely what he seems to apprehend. Following the example shown in the local Acts which have been referred to—that for Aberdeenshire in particular—the administration of the roads in county districts is to be given to a District Committee, and not to the Road Board. This Board, consisting of 30 members, is merely to be a Standing Committee. In some counties, if it were otherwise provided, you would have an unwieldy Committee, consisting of many hundred trustees. The Road Board, as you will see by referring to the 15th section of the Bill, must act subject in all respects to the directions and instructions of the general body of trustees. They have not the power of appointing district trustees. They have not the power of levying assessments. They have no power, other than of doing the work which may be deputed to them, subject to the direction of the general body of trustees. Then there is the question of Glasgow and the adjoining counties, a question which, though a local one, is, I admit, of great importance. There is no clause in the Bill dealing with that part of the subject, but I trust to be able to communicate to those interested in this question clauses bearing upon it, and designed to settle the question; and I also must, at the same time that I make the intimation, express a hope, and a very confident hope, that from such great bodies as the municipality of Glasgow and the corporations of those numerous burghs that lie upon the outskirts of that great city, together with the two counties, I will receive a considerable measure of assistance in framing clauses for the purpose of adjusting that which may fairly and reasonably be made matter of settlement between them. Failing that, I must endeavour to lay before the House such clauses as I consider just, in order that they may be disposed of by Parliament. Then, as far as regards small burghs, I content myself by saying, in answer to the observations made by the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir George Campbell), that the provisions of this Bill are in reality of the same character as those contained in the previous Bill. I am not aware of any substantial alteration made upon them. Reference has been made by the hon. the senior Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) as to certain clauses conferring powers to shut up roads. I have simply to say in regard to these that the only roads comprehended in this Bill are turnpike roads and statute labour roads, and that the general Acts which regulate these highways in Scotland contain powers exactly similar to those which it is proposed to confer upon the trustees under the Roads and Bridges Act. I am not aware that by the trustees these powers have ever been made matter of abuse or complaint. I am quite aware that complaints have been made of roads being shut up in Scotland; but the senior Member for Edinburgh can hardly fail to be aware that there are in these Scottish glens he referred to, a great number of rights of way, the property of the community, which are neither turnpike nor statute labour roads, and there is no power to shut them up except they are disused by the people. I do not propose to deal with that question at all. There have been competitions between the public and proprietors as to rights of way; but, so far as I understand the law of Scotland, such rights of way which are acquired by public uses cannot be shut up by the trustees of turnpike or statute labour roads. They may be disused for 40 years, and the public lose their rights. I do not propose to give power to shut up these, and the present Bill does nothing except to transfer from the existing trustees the powers which they already possess. I have avoided as much as possible any controversial matters in the remarks which I have addressed to the House, and in bringing these observations to a close, I have only to express the hope that the salient points upon which Scotch Members differ will be discussed and decided on an early day in Committee of the House.

asked when the Bill was likely to go into Committee?

Sir, I am unable to give a definite answer to the Question at present, but I hope to be able to state to-morrow (Friday) when the measure will be proceeded with. One word as to an observation which fell from the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren). The hon. Gentleman has referred to certain remarks which I made upon a particular occasion; but I would like to point out to him that when the remarks were uttered to which he referred, I was speaking of the Turnpike Acts Continuance Bill, and of that measure simply and entirely.