asked the Secretary to the Treasury, When the scheme for the re-organisation of the Customs Department, which has for some time been under consideration, will come into operation?

, in reply, said, he was sorry he was not in a position to state when the promised scheme would come into force. The matter was still under consideration, and he expected that the basis of the new scheme would be submitted to the Treasury in the course of the next two or three days. No time would be lost, when that scheme had been received, in coming to a conclusion upon it; and he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) hoped before very long to be able to give a more satisfactory answer to the hon. Member's Question.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will revise the scale of taxation for the sale of intoxicating liquors in Ireland, having regard to the reduction of the hours of sale by the legitimate trader, owing to the passing of the Early Closing and the Sunday Closing Bills?

Sir, at present the law provides for a reduction duty in the case of six-days' licences of six-sevenths of the full duty, and for a lower rate of five-sevenths in the case of others. In these circumstances, there did not appear to be any grounds for a further reduction.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return of all Correspondence that has taken place, or Orders made, or Resolutions or Minutes received by the Local Government Board (Ireland), relative to the payment of £25 a-year by the Government through the Guardians of the Belfast Union to the assistant teacher (Mr. Bellard) for the instruction of the boys at the union workhouse in instrumental music, which salary has been paid by the Government since 1872, and is now withheld by reason of the Local Government Board declining to give the required certificate to the Government approving said pay- ment; and, if he will state why said certificate has been refused?

Sir, the reason why the certificate to which the hon. Member refers was refused was that it did not appear to the Government that the cost of music-masters was a legitimate item of workhouse expenditure. I will look into the Correspondence and see if there is any which can, with advantage, be laid upon the Table of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true, as stated in substance in the "Manchester Guardian" of a recent date, reporting the Salford Hundred Quarter Sessions and the discussions of the Bench of Justices, that the Chief Commissioner of Prisons, Sir Edmund Du Cane, presented himself some time since at the Salford Gaol, unannounced and unknown, to the warder, and, being admitted through the outer door, ordered the warder to open the inner iron gate; whether the warder, pursuant to the rules of the Justices, declined to open the gate to a stranger, and requested to know his name and business; whether the account is true, which states that the Chief Commissioner of Prisons shook the iron gate in anger, and tried to take the keys from the warder's hands, and, not succeeding, then stated who he was, and was admitted; whether the warder for this was, by Sir Edward Du Cane's order, immediately put on six months' probation as a punishment; whether that order has ever been formally revoked, and when and whether care will be taken that the warder be not prejudiced; and, whether there will be any objection to lay the Correspondence and Papers relating to this matter upon the Table?

Sir, the first paragraph of the hon. and learned Member's Question is substantially true, with the exception of the word "unannounced." As to the second and third paragraphs, the rule of that gaol consists of two parts—first, persons desirous of seeing the Governor should be politely asked what is the nature of their business and detained pending the receipt of orders; secondly, a Visiting Justice or a Justice of the Peace having jurisdiction in the prison is to be admitted at once; if a stranger, the gatekeeper will inquire his name. The Commissioner says, "He told the gatekeeper who he was and his office at once." The gatekeeper says, "He ordered me twice to open the gate before he told me that. I said I could not allow any stranger to enter the prison without sending his name and the nature of his business to the Governor. He said, 'I am the Commissioner; open that gate,' &c. He shook the iron gate and tried to take the keys out of my hand. I sent up to the Governor and Sir Edmund was admitted." It is only fair to state that the Commissioner says he never touched him. I am asked whether the gatekeeper acted pursuant to rule. If the case fell within the first part, he certainly did, and he ought to have been rewarded rather than punished. The Commissioner, however, being a Visiting Justice, came under the second part of the rule. Therefore, I cannot say that the officer acted "in pursuance of the rule; "but it was only a mistake through over zeal and not one, in my opinion, deserving of punishment. However, though not degraded in rank, he was afterwards put on probation for six months. This was cancelled in December by a Minute of the chairman on the report of the inspector, and the inspector made the announcement to the gatekeeper in the presence of the Governor and principal and senior warders. I can only repeat now what I informed the Visiting Committee, that I very much regretted the incident; that I had fully expressed my regrets to the Commissioner; that I had insured that no injury should happen to the prospects of the gatekeeper in any way; and that I had received from the Commissioner the expression of deep regret at having been so betrayed into impatience on being, as he thought, improperly refused admittance, contrary to the rule and the usual practice. Sir Edmund is a public officer of long standing and experience, and his hard work, his ability and efficiency have constantly received high praise. I can only add on his behalf that no one regrets this incident more than the Commissioner himself. In these circumstances, I cannot see that any good would come from laying any Papers on the Table.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Government has received official notification from the Governments of Austria and Germany, or either of them, of the abrogation, in the month of October last, of the 5th Article of the Treaty of Prague of August 23rd, 1866, and any communication on the subject from Her Majesty's representatives at the Courts of Vienna and Berlin; and, if so, whether the Government will lay Copies of the Papers, together with any replies on the part of the Government, upon the Table of the House?

Sir, the abrogation of the 5th Article of the Treaty of Prague has not been notified officially to Her Majesty's Government either by the Government of Austria or Germany. Information of the fact of the abrogation has been received from Her Majesty's Representatives at Vienna and Berlin, but it is not intended to answer those communications, and, therefore, no Papers will be laid on the Table.

asked the Paymaster General, When the Report of the Royal Commission, appointed to inquire into the privileges and revenues of certain Municipal Corporations, will be laid upon the Table of the House?

Sir, I am not surprised at this Question. The inquiry has been prolonged far beyond what I expected when I undertook it. There were 101 Corporations on the original list, to which 10 others were afterwards added. We have examined a large number of witnesses from most of these places, though nothing like all who were anxious to come; and we have had to wade through a mass of Correspondence, former Reports, old charters, and other documents. A Royal Commission is not like a Parliamentary Committee, which can sit on stated days throughout the Session. The Members of this Commission, over which I have the honour to preside, are men fully engaged elsewhere. One is a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. There are three Queen's Counsel; there are, also, Chairmen of Quarter Sessions in distant counties. I myself was Chairman of four Committees of this House last Session, and, of course, my time was much taken up. Nevertheless, we have held 118 sittings, of which 46 were during the Recess. We have completed 65 boroughs, and have received evidence with respect to all the rest; and I hope we may report before Whitsuntide. The hon. Gentleman may rely upon our losing no time, for I can assure him that we have had quite enough of the subject.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If the Indian Government has yet decided to introduce Factory legislation into India; and, if he is yet prepared to lay upon the Table the Report that was obtained as to the condition of the Factories in India?

Sir, I am sorry to say that we do not yet know the decision to which the Government of India has come upon this subject; but a Bill is certainly under their consideration. The only Report we have at present is one of July, 1875. It would, therefore, be probably better to await more recent information before laying any Papers on the Table.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If there have been any recent negotiations with Turkey on the subject of Slavery in the Red Sea, and what is the present footing of that question?

Sir, a despatch, dated the 3rd of February, has been received from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, reporting that the draft of the Anti-Slave Trade Treaty which was submitted to the Porte last summer has passed the Council of Ministers, and that Caratheodori Pasha has been instructed at once to enter into negotiations with the British Representative for its conclusion.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Exchequer Bonds for £2,750,000, which become payable on 16th, 23rd, and 27th of March next, and which are enumerated in a Paper recently laid upon the Table of the House, comprise the whole of last year's deficiency to be provided for before the 31st March next; and, whether he intends paying the bonds off out of the surplus income of the present year or renewing them; and, if the latter, for how long?

Sir, I believe there will be no further deficiency disclosed by the Appropriation Accounts to be provided for this year. But with regard to the more important part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, I would, with his permission, request him to wait two or three days, when I shall have to make a proposal to the House with regard to the necessary provision for meeting the bonds which are in question.

asked whether, before the right hon. Gentleman made his proposal, a Statement of the Supplementary Expenditure for the present year would have been laid on the Table?

, in reply, said, he hoped he would be able to lay on the Table in a few days a Statement with regard to some of the Supplementary Expenditure; but he was not sure that he could give a complete Statement.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any application has been made to confer a medal on the officers and men who composed the expedition to Perak?

, in reply, said that, so far as he could trace the matter, some application of that kind was made two or three years ago; but the service performed at Perak was not thought to be of so important a nature as to render it the subject of a special medal. At the same time there was some hard fighting; and he was, therefore, prepared to place himself in communication with the Colonial and the India Offices with the view of seeing whether the medal for frontier service could not be so extended as to include a special clasp for Perak.

Hon. Members who have discussed these Resolutions at some length have incurred an amount of censure which it seems to me is entirely undeserved. The House of Commons would be unworthy of its name, and it would be false to its character as the Representative Assembly of the people, if it did not offer a determined resistance to these despotic and reactionary Resolutions. The more these Resolutions are considered, the more objectionable they appear to independent Members on both sides of the House. We were told at first that the Resolutions had nothing to do with, obstruction; but the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), who loves to persecute opinion, religious or political, when it differs from his own, declared the real motive of these restrictive proposals. By the first Resolution the Chancellor of the Exchequer would push us at once into Committee when Supply is down; and when he gets us into Committee, without any previous discussion, he will then still further restrict our freedom of debate; and yet we are told, in the blandest possible manner, that all this will facilitate the discussion of the Estimates. If you want to facilitate the discussion of the Estimates, why do you propose, in the second Resolution, to gag Members in Committee, to limit their freedom of speech, and restrict their right of taking divisions? While many plausible excuses are put forward for these proposed alterations in the Rules, the principal argument urged in their favour is that they will facilitate the despatch of Public Business. Now, this is the one important point which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and those who have spoken on his side of the question, have, I venture to say, entirely failed to prove. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire says the time has come when something must be done to maintain the dignity of Parliament. I quite agree with him; but when he suggests that the House of Commons shall put on a straight jacket and wear a strong chain, held in the hands of the Executive, in order to look dignified and respectable, I fail to appreciate the force of his reasoning. If the House were capable of that, it would be capable of sacrificing at once both its character and dignity; and no one ought to be surprised, therefore, at the opposition which the House has given to these very ob- noxious Resolutions. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) has distinguished himself among the champions of Parliamentary coercion on this side of the House; and he asked us the other night to consider what was the complaint of the country against the House, and he told us that it was that the House was unequal to its work, and unable to get through the legislation urgently demanded. The country has certainly a right to complain of the deadlock in legislation; but I venture to contend that the remedy which has found favour with the right hon. Gentleman will aggravate the disease instead of removing it. If you stifle the expression of popular wants in the House of Commons, where shall they find utterance? You may say these Resolutions do not go so far as that. But, remember, they lead the way in that direction, and the experience of all history shows that if encroachments of this kind are not sternly resisted at the outset, they will be repeated again and again, and they will find you on each successive occasion less able to repel them, until finally you are obliged to succumb without raising a murmur of opposition. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson), who has been referred to as a high authority on the Business of Parliament, told us he had endeavoured to induce the House to part with some of its work. I regret very much that his efforts in that direction wore not successful. He was then on the right track, and pursuing a more statesmanlike course than he is now pursuing in lending his support, however cautiously, to the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are only two rational courses, by either of which the difficulties of the House can be removed. You must either so enlarge the powers of local government as to give Home Rule to Ireland for Irish affairs, Home Rule to Scotland for Scottish affairs, and Home Rule to England for English affairs, while at the same time maintaining the Imperial Parliament in all its strength and integrity for carrying on the government of the Empire, and for the transaction of all Imperial affairs; or, taking the Representatives of the three nationalities as they are in this House, you must assign to each national section respectively the legisla- tion affecting the country which each represents. With the continued accumulation of work you must introduce the principle of the division of labour, or get rid of such portions of the work as you are unable to perform. The latter is by far the more sensible course to adopt; and I assert, emphatically, that this House is utterly incompetent to legislate satisfactorily for the internal wants of the three Kingdoms, besides grappling with the multitude of affairs comprehended in the management of a vast and widely-extended Empire. One day the House is summoned to discuss a question of high Imperial interest, on another to debate the merits of a Turnpike Bill—or, as somebody said a few days ago, a road across Hyde Park; but no one has undertaken to show why Parliament should stoop to questions of this description. What should I, as an Irish Member, know about the merits of the Scotch Roads and Bridges Bill, and why should I be obliged to master its details to the possible neglect of matters in which my constituents take a deeper interest? Why, on the other hand, should Englishmen and Scotchmen insist on having a voice in deciding the merits of Irish Water Bills, Gas Bills, and Railway Bills? These are plain questions and urgent questions which the Select Committee on Public Business seems to have entirely ignored; but they are important questions which will one day force themselves on the attention of statesmen, and demand recognition and settlement. You have sanctioned a policy which is extending the Empire every day and adding to your tremendous responsibilities. But domestic affairs are not less pressing on that account. They are constantly growing with the growth of modern civilization. There is now a school in every village, and the land is dotted with libraries and reading-rooms, like oases in the desert, where the people resort to drink of the fountain of knowledge. There is education, and information, and enlightenment everywhere, accompanied by discussion; and the consequence is that a thousand new problems of social, industrial, and political interest spring up every year which demand the consideration of the highest statesmanship. Looking at the condition of Germany and other countries, it must come home to the mind of every thoughtful man that some of the questions of the day, to which I allude, are questions which it would be dangerous to ignore. The transformation which the work of Parliament has undergone has been well described by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. J. Cowen), and the evils of which he complains arise from the tendency to centralization, which has been growing stronger and stronger every year, and which the present Executive has forced to a point which is simply intolerable. It flatters the vanity of the House to assure it that when local institutions are brought under the control of the Government they will be under the control of Parliament also; and that, as the people control the House of Commons, they will always rule, no matter who may govern Statements of this kind were put forward in support of the Prisons Bill; but nothing could be more delusive. The prisons wore handed over to the Government. But does any unofficial Member of this House imagine that any word or act of his will influence prison discipline or prison management? No; it was the officials of the Home Office, and not the Members of this House, who obtained control of the prisons when you centralized the prison system. They will take care to capture each now Homo Secretary, and bind him hand-and-foot with the red tape of their system; and the same thing happens in each of the other Departments. The Minister presiding over each is in the hands of his own officials. By-and-bye, when these evils shall accumulate beyond endurance, the people will cry out, not against the tyranny of the Government or the tyranny of Parliament, but against the tyranny of confederated officials, against the tyranny of an odious bureaucracy, which is the most hateful tyranny of all. Surely it is time to make a stand against centralization, if local liberty and local power are not to be entirely surrendered. The necessity of doing something to facilitate Public Business appears to be a sufficient argument with some hon. Gentlemen in favour of these Resolutions; but if you are to go on tightening your Rules, and increasing your Business, the logical conclusion of your action will be a despotism which will dispense with Constitutional liberty and Parliamentary institutions. It will certainly be something like the irony of fate, or poetical vengeance, if this House, which has often used its power to destroy the liberty of many nations, should, as a necessity of its policy, end by destroying its own. It is not, perhaps, from an Irish Representative whose country has felt the tyranny of your sway that you should receive warning of such a possible catastrophe; and I will conclude by declaring that, as a friend of freedom of speech and popular rights, I, for one, will consent to no part of the coercion code which the Minister has attempted to fasten upon the House.

believed that the House was generally of opinion that they should arrive at some compromise on this question, and proceed to that very interesting and important topic—the future of the British Army. When his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a friendly and generous spirit, accepted the compromise of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), he (Mr. Beresford Hope) ventured to point out reasons why he thought it was not sufficient. There were certain evils which were inherent in it which were not so conspicuous in the proposition of 1876. Under the Rule of 1872 there would be much more temptation than under that of 1876 to heap the Notice Papers on first Supply nights with Motions which might be raised so as to prevent the Minister in charge of the Estimates from making his Statement till after the dinner-hour, when the House was in a state of exhausted collapse. In contrast to this, the expedient which the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested in examining Mr. Speaker before the Committee, and which Mr. Speaker in his evidence unmistakably supported, and of which the Chairman of Committees also most strongly approved, was that the Minister in charge of the Estimates should make his Statement on the Motion that the Speaker should leave the Chair. He would make his Statement in face of the Amendments on the Paper, and could therefore traverse and answer a great many of them by anticipation. If that were done, and the Resolution of 1876 adopted, the Government would gain considerable advantage, and, at the same time, no hon. Members would be stopped from the right of stating a grievance before Supply. The rationale of the present system was that the House being already in Committee of Supply the Minister stated the reasons of the Vote for which he asked. The rationale of the one which he proposed was that the Minister gave his reasons for going into a Committee of Supply by a general sketch of what would be asked for when that Committee was set up. If, therefore, his right hon. Friend would take the framework of the Resolution of 1876, modified by that other reform which he himself originally suggested, of allowing the Minister to make his Statement on the Motion that the Speaker should leave the Chair, he believed that it would meet the general wish of the House.

said, he was anxious to agree to a compromise in order to cut short the protracted discussion, and with that view he had already accepted certain Amendments to his Resolution; and he thought that the compromise he had so offered was quite sufficient. He was not, therefore, prepared to accept the additional Amendments suggested. He could only repeat now what he had said on one or two previous occasions. They had discussed the matter very fully, and as far as the technical question of the alteration of the Rules was concerned the argument had been exhausted. He admitted, of course, that the larger and wider questions raised by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) would require, and indeed they deserved, larger and fuller examination; but they did not arise upon this technical question, and the House would hardly think it convenient to go into them. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would not think him discourteous in declining to follow him. The present Resolution dealt with the question of the best way of so arranging the details of the Orders as to give the best facilities for pursuing Business with decent rapidity, and, at the same time, without unduly fettering the rights and liberties of the House. Of course, hon. Members would understand that it was impossible to have any Rules that would not in some way fetter the liberty which was the natural privilege of every man in this country. Even the Rule that they must not speak twice on the same subject might be said to fetter the liberty of every man to speak when he liked. The question before the House had been carefully considered, not only in this debate and in the Committee which sat last year, but also in former years. On the whole, he thought the Resolution which he had proposed, with the Amendments which he had already accepted, and which were very considerable, would be a fair and reasonable arrangement and one which they might work upon. It was pretty much the arrangement that was adopted in 1872 and 1873; and while carrying out the proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter W. Barttelot), and the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon), it would not infringe the liberty of anyone. What he hoped was that now, after so much discussion, the House would be allowed to come to a conclusion. They would first divide on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow, and if he was successful, the Rule would be adopted in that form. If he failed, then he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was prepared to adopt either the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex or that of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury. The Business on the Paper was important and interesting, and there would be a good deal of disappointment felt if the Army Estimates were to be put off. His proposal was that if they should come to a vote at an early hour on the first Resolution, he would not ask the House to take the other Resolutions into consideration at present; but they might stand over for another time.

said, he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had refused to surrender the point, and would remind him that if he wished to proceed to the consideration of the Army Estimates at once, the only way of succeeding in his desire was to accept the suggestion of a further compromise. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would move to add the words "or Notice" to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), in order that questions requiring some explanation might be put and debated before Supply.

said, he willingly accepted the addition proposed by his hon. Friend. He was also sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not able to accept his Amendment, because the right hon. Gentleman put himself in the peculiar position of going back to the Liberal Resolutions of 1872, instead of to his own in 1876. It was quite clear, if the 1872 Rule were adopted, irrelevant Notices would be piled up on Monday nights, and that was exactly what the House wished to avoid.

thought it would be more convenient to take the sense of the House on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope). He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member for Glasgow would withdraw his Amendment.

thought the Government must have had some other object in view when they refused the reasonable compromise which had been offered. They were all equally interested with the Government in the proper conduct of the Public Business; but they could not be silenced by the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which were not arguments; and he protested against the sic volo sic jubeo style in which the right hon. Gentleman was treating the House.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment in deference to the appeal of the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington). The sense of the House would be taken distinctly on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope), which practically was the same as his own.

, in moving, as an Amendment, to insert after the word "shall," the words "except on first going into Committee on the ordinary Army, Navy, or Civil Service Estimates respectively," said, that ifs object was to allow Amendments, whether relevant or not to the Estimates, to be brought forward on the first night that they were placed on the Paper. In consequence of the appeal made on a former evening by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, he would not move it, unless the House wished it. At present he asked leave to withdraw it. ["No, no!"]

said, he must really appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether it was his determination to maintain the attitude of adhering to the Rule of 1872 in preference to that of 1876? He thought the right hon. Gentleman might save a great deal of time, and might enable the House to proceed to a consideration of the Army Estimates, if, in deference to what was undoubtedly the feeling of a considerable section of the Opposition, he agreed to accept the principle of the latter Rule. The principle of the Rule of 1876 had the sanction which experience always gave; but, according to the evidence given before the Select Committee, the Rule of 1872 had been tried and found wanting. It was proposed by the Liberal Government of the day, and was strenuously resisted by the whole of the then Conservative Opposition (including the present Leader of the House), with the single exception of the present Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), who seemed to have a singular prescience that the Rule would not work, and who voted in favour of inquiry and examination into the whole question, before the House ventured to adopt so startling an alteration. He (Mr. Parnell) fully admitted that this was a two-edged weapon, and that it cut both ways. Still, he thought he might ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was really worth his while to perpetuate a struggle of this kind? No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman might have entered into a very accurate mathematical calculation as to the amount of time which he might save by persisting in his present course of action. He might have seen that there was a prospect, if but a bare one, of getting his first Resolution carried that evening; and he might have thought that with that Resolution adopted, and becoming a Sessional Order of the House, he might by that means gain sufficient time during the rest of the Session to make up for the loss of one evening. But he (Mr. Parnell) would ask the House whether that was either a sensible or a statesmanlike view for a Government to take who were intrusted with such great responsibilities, and that, too, in connection with a proposal which cut directly at the root of a Constitutional principle? No doubt, the Members of the Government might say to themselves—"Our position is very powerful. We may occupy our seats here for years to come. There is no sign of cohesion in the Opposition, and there is no prospect of our rivals being in power." But, after all, things did sometimes alter. Sudden changes did occur. Great Powers had fallen in a moment. Napoleon III. appeared to have an assured maintenance of his position for years to come; but he fell suddenly, and although he (Mr. Parnell) did not suppose that the Zulu King would be able to bring about a catastrophe of a similar description, which would compel the Chancellor of the Exchequer to fly from his capital, no one knew what foreign complications might arise, or when the right hon. Gentleman might have to vacate his present high position. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not hope to make the Rule of 1872 a Standing Order that evening; and he (Mr. Parnell) must really ask him whether it was worth his while to keep alive an element of contention of this description, and to face a renewal of the difficulties which had already risen in the House during the last eight or nine days? He did not wish it to be said that by any conduct on his part the privileges of the English Parliament were being diminished. The House of Commons had a great history, and although Irish Members might think their country had been injured by the necessity of having to seek justice in an English Legislature, they could not look back upon that history without feelings of some reverence for it, and for the exertions of the men who had raised the House to the position which it now occupied. But what were the Government now proposing to do? They were going to drive a nail into the work of their ancestors—men who won their liberties and who fought for them. It remained for the despised Irish Members to insist upon preserving the rights and liberties of the House. No equivalent would be gained by the Government for the loss which would be sustained in other directions were their proposal to be accepted.

said, the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had appealed to him (Mr. Newdegate) as one who had had, for a long time, the honour of a seat in the House. The hon. Gentleman had spoken in support of the principle of the Rule of 1876; but it was to be hoped he would come to see, by degrees, that it would be neither for the advantage of the House, nor of the country, that the course which he recommended should be followed. The Resolution of 1872 was certainly to be preferred to that of 1876; or, rather, the substance of the one was to be preferred to the substance of the other. The hon. Member for Meath had laid great stress upon the ancient privileges of the House. Those privileges had been asserted quite as much by the forbearance of hon. Gentlemen as by their exacting the full extent of their rights; and what he (Mr. Newdegate) had seen convinced him that, under the Resolution of 1872, the practical Business of the House had been much more smoothly conducted than under the Resolution of 1876. If hon. Members would but recall what took place between those years—1872 and 1876—and compare the course of Business during the Sessions between those dates with what had occurred since 1876, they, he thought, must come to the conclusion that the House had been able to perform its duties better in every sense, between 1872 and 1876, than it had been able to do since.

said, he now desired to move the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper. The proposal which he submitted to the House was in the following terms:—

"To add at the end of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's first Resolution, 'except an Amendment relative to the Class of Estimates which has been set down for consideration on that day be moved, in which case Mr. Speaker shall be bound to propose the question in respect of such Amendment: Provided always, That the Member of the Government who proposes to move the Estimates upon that day may make his statement with Mr. Speaker in the Chair.'"

No doubt, the first portion of his Amendment had been already discussed; but the second part of it imported, as he thought, a very beneficial colouring into the whole matter. He had already touched on the question, and he was rather disappointed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken no notice of what he had been urging. The object of that second portion was to enable a Minister, charged with the duty of giving a Statement to the House as to certain Estimates, to make that Statement while the Speaker was in the Chair. He had been very much disappointed to find that, in the remarks which were made a short time previously by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, his right hon. Friend entirely passed over the appeal which he had made to him in reference to this subject; and he must again endeavour to impress its importance upon the House and upon the Government. The proposal which he now made not only rested upon the recommendation of very high authorities, but it would be attended with obvious advantages in facilitating that despatch of Business, which it was the object of the Resolutions of the Government to promote. It would enable a Minister to rise and make his Statement about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, when the House was full, when the Minister himself was fresh, and when the Statement would be delivered in time for post and telegraph. By adopting the proposal which he urged upon the attention of the Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get rid of the scandal of a hungry Minister making an important speech in an almost empty House at 9 or 10 o'clock; and that, in his opinion, ought to more than compensate the Government for anything they might give up by agreeing to accept his proposal. Hon. Members might put the matter to the most practical test by considering what would have been their own experience that very night if the House were doing and not talking of Business, and if his proposal had been in operation. Long before the hour on which he himself was at that time speaking the Minister for War would have been able to make his Statement, instead of having, either under the old Rule, or that of 1872—it being a Monday and the first night of the Army Estimates—to wait till a series of Amendments had been disposed of, and either get up at some late hour, or be altogether thrown over for the night. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman who led their deliberations to give peace and contentment to the House by agreeing to a proposition which would not only facilitate the despatch of Business, but afford an additional privilege to Ministers themselves.

said, he was not insensible to the value of the Proviso which his hon. Friend who had just spoken (Mr. Beresford Hope) proposed to attach to his Amendment. No doubt, on the first occasion of bringing forward the Army and Navy Estimates, that Proviso would be of great convenience, and would facilitate the Business of the House. That, however, was not the point which they had now to consider. The question which had been raised, and with which the House had to deal, was as to how they were to conduct the Business during the whole of the Session upon questions of Supply. According to the proposal of his hon. Friend, all through the Session, whenever Supply was put down, it would be competent for hon. Members to bring forward Motions relative to the class of Estimates set down for consideration; but it was obviously very difficult to say—and this was one of the great objections to the working of the Rule of 1876—what Amendments were or were not relative to the class of Estimates so set down. By a little ingenuity a very large number of Amendments might be brought within that term—such, for instance, as the conditions under which Kew Gardens should be open to the public. Now, what he desired was to secure certainty in the discussion of the Estimates, so that the time of the House should not be wasted; and he hoped, therefore, the House would at once come to a division, and not go again over the arguments which had been so repeatedly urged.

said, he could not understand on what possible ground the Chancellor of the Exchequer could object to the use of the word "relative" in the proposal of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), as that word occurred in all the Amendments to the Resolution, including the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had accepted. Surety, either the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees would be competent to decide such a point, when they were asked to decide the question as to whether a particular Motion was in Order. The effect of adopting the Resolution of the Government would be to curtail and narrow the rights and privileges of hon. Members without facilitating the despatch of the Business of the House. The Amendment of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge facilitated the Business of the House without encroaching on those rights, and he therefore supported it.

said, he could not see that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had yet brought forward any sound argument in favour of the proposition which he had submitted to the House. Hon. Members must retain and not lose the rights and privileges they at present possessed.

suggested that if the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) would withdraw his Proviso, which seemed to him (Mr. Paget) to rest on an entirely different ground to the main body of the Amendment, it would be easier for the House to come to a clear understanding on the matter. The Amendment would then become practically the same as that of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot); and it would, in that case, better recommend itself to the adoption of the House.

said, he could not consent to do so, as the with- drawal of the Proviso would spoil the symmetry of the system embodied in his Amendment.

said, he entirely agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this not very large question had been debated as much as it could be. He therefore should not have said anything more on the subject except for the statement made by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnoll), who had said that he (the Marquess of Hartington) had shown a decided preference for the Rule of 1876 over that of 1872. He did not think that anyone had shown any preference of that kind except his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt). The importance of the difference between them had been greatly exaggerated; but if he had a preference for either of them, it was for the Resolution of 1872, under the working of which no hon. Member had thought himself injured by being shut out or excluded from bringing any question to which he attached any importance under the consideration of the House. The Rule of 1872 was not, as the hon. Member for Meath had stated, abandoned because it was not found to work well. It worked, so far as he knew, perfectly well, and without producing any complaint; but it was abandoned by the Government during the first Session of their existence, because the state of Business was such that they did not feel the necessity for its continuance which they now felt. The suggestion which he made the other night, although not accepted in its entirety by the Government, still, he thought, pointed to a remedy in this matter. If the Government refused to discuss a point in dispute on the Estimates, a Member had another opportunity of bringing forward the subject when the Resolutions relating to the Estimates were reported to the House. As regarded Kew Gardens, the hon. Member for Galway need not be under any alarm, as he would have a full opportunity of raising the question upon the Motion for the payment of the salary of the officers. He should certainly support the Rule of 1872 as proposed by the Government.

, in apology, said, he must certainly have made a mistake if he had said that the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) had ever shown any decided preference for the Rule of 1876 as compared with that of 1872; because the noble Lord had never shown any decided preference for anything as compared with another.

, who had an Amendment upon the Paper, to add the words—

"Unless on going into Committee an Amendment be moved relevant to the Votes to be considered on that day,"

said, after the vote just given by the House, he should not move it.

said, in that case, he would do so, with the addition of the words "or Question asked "after the word "moved," in order to draw attention to a subject which had not yet been sufficiently discussed. If the Resolution was passed as it now stood, a Member would have no opportunity of calling attention to a subject, or of asking a question on any matter, however relevant it might be, unless he moved a definite Resolution.

hoped the House would very gravely pause before it adopted the Amendment. One of the great difficulties at the present time was that hon. Members called attention to subjects without giving the body of the House any opportunity of expressing their opinion thereon. Such a vast enlargement of the privilege of asking Questions had taken place of late years, that he thought the House ought to be careful before it granted any further enlargement, or how it permitted a Member to draw attention to a subject, and set on foot a discussion which might last the whole evening, without the House having an opportunity of expressing its opinion thereon.

thought the hon. Member for North Warwick- shire (Mr. Newdegate) might just as well say that no Questions should be asked at half-past 4 o'clock; that was the logical conclusion of his argument.

I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) should raise an objection to the proposal of the hon. Baronet, because it is in accordance with the course hitherto followed, and which has been found of great convenience, by giving an opportunity for discussion on a Question being put involving a certain amount of argument. I am quite sure, if the hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate) will recall his own experience, he will remember that, convenience has arisen from discussions of that character. We have an instance at hand at the present moment on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply this evening. The hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) has given Notice that he will call attention to the subject of the occupation of Cyprus, and ask certain Questions. I happen to know that my hon. Friend does not intend to bring this subject on to-night; but I mention it, as it is clearly one of the kind of Questions which, with great propriety, might be brought forward on going into Committee of Supply; and the hon. Baronet might put to the Government Questions on a matter of great public interest, coupled with certain statements, which he would not be enabled to make at the Question time at half-past 4 o'clock. But I wish, Mr. Speaker, to appeal to you in this matter, on which I am inclined to hold an opinion contrary to that of the hon. Member for Chelsea. If a Notice of this kind had been put down on the Paper, a Notice relevant to the class of Estimates, would it be competent under the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), for the hon. Member for Chelsea to raise the question without absolutely putting his Notice in the form of an Amendment? Perhaps, Sir, if you would give an opinion on this point, it might remove the necessity of altering the words of the Resolution as now proposed, and I do think that such a Notice should be permitted under the Standing Order of the House.

said, he could not see how the Government could refuse to accede to the principle of the proposal now made.

, in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), said, that in the event of the House passing the Resolution before it, with the addition of the Amendment about to be moved by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), if an Amendment relevant to the class of Votes proposed to be taken were moved and negatived, it would not be competent for the House to divide on any other Amendment, even though it were relevant; but the subject-matter of such Amendment might be discussed. If on the Motion to go into Committee, an hon. Member rose in his place, even though he had no Amendment on the Notice Paper, it would be his (Mr. Speaker's) duty to assume that the hon. Member intended to conclude with a Motion, or to address himself to the Question before the House; and therefore he could not prevent him from proceeding to address the House.

said, that the Amendment merely put into a definite form that which was already the practice of the House.

thought the Amendment was not necessary, and they were only wasting their time by beating in the air.

said, he should not, after the explanation which had been given, put the House to the trouble of a division.

said, it was intended that an hon. Member should be at liberty to do so. In that view, the Amendment of the hon. Baronet was perfectly reasonable, and he would agree to it.

said, the proposed Amendment was immaterial, and he would agree to it.

proposed further to amend the proposed Amendment by the substitution for the words "the Civil Service Estimates" of the words "the several Classes of the Civil Service Estimates." Many of those classes differed widely from each other, and if the Amendment were not agreed to, the Irish Members would be debarred the opportunity of discussing questions in which they were much interested. Hon. Members would then be driven to use every possible privilege they still retained, and, instead of Business being advanced, it would be very much retarded.

seconded the Amendment.

thought a reference to the Rule of 1872 would simplify the matter. The words used in that Rule were, "the several divisions of the Estimates."

, in supporting the Amendment, remarked that the ostensible cause of these new Rules was the obstruction of a small number of Irish Members. He denied that there had been any obstruction, except in the case of the South African Bill.

said, that the Amendment would really shorten the Monday Business, and he would counsel the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept it. If the Civil Service Estimates were broken up into classes, he supposed the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not take more than one class each night, while the Minister representing that class would offer his explanation. Such a classification, in his opinion, was quite necessary.

contended that the Amendment was a reasonable one, and hoped the Government would not oppose it, as it would give an opportunity to the House to discuss more than one question relating to the Civil Service Estimates on one day, which was no more than right, seeing there were at least seven branches as dissimilar from each other as from the Army or Navy.

said, that the condition sought to be attached to the Resolution would do very much away with the advantage of the Rule. He thought quite enough was given, considering the many opportunities there would be for discussing any question that might arise, if one day were set apart for the discussion of any of the questions affecting the Civil Service Estimates. If the Estimates were sub-divided into classes, the time of the House would be really frittered away, without any corresponding advantage. He did not think it was proposed to carry the Amendment so far as was suggested.

thought that what Government lost in one way it would gain in another; because on going into, say, the Education Votes, it would be impossible to raise any question on Public Parks.

ventured to think that if the House at any time desired to have further information of the Minister in charge of the Estimates, it would be able to obtain it; that a general discussion could be raised upon any part of the Estimates; and that the Secretary to the Treasury would not be able to force them on. That information could be obtained if the House passed the Resolution as agreed to by the Government. Though the Resolution were passed, it would not necessarily follow that Monday would be the only day on which Estimates would be taken. Hon. Members might, therefore, rely on having ample opportunities for the discussion of the Estimates. It was never contemplated that there should be such a sub-division of Estimates as was now suggested. The Rule was introduced in 1876 by the noble Lord at the head of the Government in the form in which it had worked well in 1872–3; and although it was amended, that did not imply any admission that it had not worked satisfactorily.

said, the Amendment would raise a practical difficulty to reporting Progress in the middle, say, of Class 1, and on a subsequent night finishing that class and proceeding with, say, Classes 2 and 3; because Class 1 would not be entered upon then for the first time, so that no Amendment could be moved on going again into Committee upon it, whilst Classes 2 and 3, though they might have been down on the Paper the first night, would not actually have been begun. This alteration would render it necessary, therefore, to take only one class each night, and would be productive of great inconvenience. As the Rule only applied to one night, and the Government had made several concessions, they might pass the Resolution as it stood.

said, it was admitted there should be an opportunity of discussing each division of the Estimates before going into Committee; the different classes of the Civil Service Estimates were as important as the Army or the Navy Estimates; and it was the business of the Ministers to devise the words by which the necessary latitude should be assured and not to leave hon. Members at the mercy of any particular Minister who might bring on the Estimates. If the Government did not accept the Amendment, the variety of topics that would have to be mooted on going into Committee on any division of the Estimates would render it impossible that any abuse, however serious, could secure sufficient attention from the House and the Government. They ought to put a limit to the concessions now being made to the Government.

said, the alternative to the Amendment proposed would be Amendments in Committee of Supply; but that would not be a satisfactory mode of discussing some grievances.

said, the Government apparently desired to drive independent Members to obstruction; he did not mean now, but in the future course of Business, for as such it would be regarded to impede the Report of Supply at the time it was often brought on. That stage was often taken at such an hour that any discussion on the Estimates became impossible. This Rule was, therefore, an incentive to the adoption of methods of Parliamentary warfare which ought to be seldom resorted to. It was impossible to conclude that the Rule adopted in 1872 would work well now, because since 1872 the Civil Service Estimates had very much increased. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Gal way was, therefore, one that raised a most important question.

thought the major portion of the arguments which had been adduced were decidedly in favour of the proposal of the hon. Member for Gal-way (Mr. Mitchell Henry). He (Mr. Errington) thought, however, that the Government might consent to a compromise. Several of the classes of Estimates were, of course, more important than others, and he would suggest that some of the least important should be grouped together. For instance, the Classes numbered 1 and 2 might be grouped; Class 3, or the Administration of Justice, would, of course, deserve a night to itself; Class 4, Education, would also deserve a night; and he proposed that Classes 5, 6, and 7 should be taken together, and one night devoted to them; so that instead of seven nights being required for the Civil Service Estimates, they would need only four. That was a less concession than hon. Members asked for, but one worthy of the consideration of the Government.

said, the fact that the Government would not accept the Amendment would impose upon independent Members the obligation of taking steps to counteract what the Government wished to impose, which was nothing more than an attempt to stop the exposition of grievances in respect to the Civil Service Estimates; and he really thought there could not be a scheme bettor calculated to bring the authority of this House into contempt, and better calculated to shake the confidence of the nation, than the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had presented to them. When hon. Members took an undue advantage of a liberal and generous regulation of debates, they could only do so at the imminent risk and at the practical certainty of finding themselves condemned not only by the Government whom they disturbed, but by the country at large. On the other hand, when Members, in obedience to a public duty, and in recognition of the claims of men who came to them and asked that their grievances should be exposed in Parliament, could only obtain a hearing by adopting some Parliamentary chicane, and getting round and about the devices of Government, they would not be condemned by the country at large for obstruction, but they would be applauded. Under even a generous regulation, Members had sometimes to push the liberty of discussion to its utmost limits, and Members had been found to do that with reasonable ground, and an irritated Government did not dare to take measures to punish their objectionable action. Under these circumstances, he asked the Government to consider, would Members of similar resolution hesitate for one single moment to challenge the displeasure of the Government when they had such a good excuse and ground for setting at naught the threats of Government penalties as these Resolutions practically set forth? It was perfectly true, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that if they looked at the Rules and Orders of the House generally, the proposed restrictions of the Government would not in the slightest degree interfere with the liberty of independent Members, if such Members were only resolute in maintaining their liberties. He meant to say that if the Government refused to allow independent Members a fair opportunity of expressing their grievances, those Members certainly, by making use of the forms of the House, could contrive a means and find an opportunity to bring their grievances forward, and irregular in reality though they might be, nevertheless their conduct would be regular in outward seeming, and would be according to Parliamentary form. What the Government said in effect to the independent Members was that they did not propose to interfere with their liberties, because they knew that would be useless on their part; yet by way of improving the conduct of debates in that House, they intended to force them to give up bringing forward their grievances in a regular form, and compel them to avail themselves of irregular opportunities. This was the notion which the Government entertained of raising the dignity of that House in the eyes of the country. It was unfortunate that the Amendment of the hon. Member for the county of Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had been introduced in a thin House, and in the almost total absence of all Government authority, because no more important Resolution had been proposed during the period that matter had been under discussion. The Government had admitted the principle that special opportunities ought to be given for the discussion of grievances relating to the Army and Navy, when the Estimates relating to those Services were going to be brought forward, yet they denied that there existed the same necessity of giving facility to discuss grievances in relation to the Civil Service Estimates when those Estimates were to be proceeded with. Nothing could be more illogical than the position of the Government on that point, and nothing could be more aggravating. They seemed to be desirous of provoking an opposition to their views from certain hon. Members which would enable them to propose a still further curtailment of their liberties. That they should be simply a recording Assembly, and take their cue from the Government of the day, was doubtless an idea which might commend itself to Members of the Cæsarist School, of which there were many in that House; but in the Civil Service Estimates they had to deal with diplomatic changes, with education, and with very many other subjects of the highest importance to the whole community—subjects which were more prolific of discussion than all the Votes of the Army and Navy Estimates put together. There was not much reason for discussion on the Army and Navy Estimates as a rule, because those Estimates did not enter into the domain of Party politics, both Parties in the House being interested in having an efficient Army and Navy; and only for the large number of officers who were in the House it was extremely probable the Estimates of those two Services would pass over quietly and after brief discussion, and with just a minimum of amicable conversation between the experts of the House. But the Civil Service Estimates covered ground of a very large extent, and they absolutely bristled with controversy. Those Estimates included such subjects as the administration of the Poor Law, Education, the Revenue, the Post Office, the Telegraph Service, and numberless other matters, while 99 per cent of the citizens of the Empire took no interest in the Army and Navy Estimates beyond the natural and moderate interest of knowing that they were being fairly conducted. On the other hand, 99 per cent of the people were obliged to take a deep interest in the Civil Service Departments, because their best and dearest interests were affected by them. Now, these Estimates were to be more and more withdrawn from the cognizance of Parliament; and by the proposal of the Government it appeared to be the intention of the Government to keep the people more and more from a knowledge of their own affairs. If it was the intention of the Government to rule without criticism and without observation; if it was their wish to do everything they pleased with the Civil Service Estimates, if they wanted to job and re-job, to be extravagant or parsimonious just as they pleased, to introduce arbitrary rules, to interfere with the discipline of prisons, to meddle with the conduct of education, to make and unmake in a hundred different ways without giving the people an opportunity of knowing what was going on, the policy which the Government was pursuing was just the one to accomplish those objects. Their proposals were a provocation to Members to combine together in order to interfere with the progress of Public Business, so that they might have something like an opportunity of bringing forward their grievances. The plan of the Government, therefore, instead of facilitating Business, would simply prove a stumbling-block. Their conduct was reconcilable with no theory of public government except that of Cæsarist rule, and ruling behind the backs of the people. The Government were proud of their majority, and as regarded their foreign policy, he believed, represented the views of the country, at least of the English people; but if they were to persevere with that attempt to stop grievances being hoard on the Civil Service Estimates, they would find they had lost more in the country that they had gained by their foreign policy.

said, that in the interest of Ireland he felt bound to endeavour to obtain some opportunity for the discussion of Irish subjects in the Civil Service Estimates. He would therefore move an Amendment to insert words in the Resolution which would give an opportunity for raising discussion on going into Committee on the Classes of the Estimates relating to "Law, Justice, Education, and Public Works of Ireland." No one could say that was an obstructive Amendment. The Departments he had named were of the first importance conditioning the progress and prosperity of Ireland in the most vital manner. The conduct of the Government, on more than one occasion, supplied them with a precedent for making the present demand. They had, on more than one occasion, set apart a special day for the consideration of the Irish Classes of the Estimates, much to the convenience of Irish Members who wished to attend, and to the convenience of other Members who wished to be absent. Even though a powerful contingent of Ministerial supporters might be waiting to give Irish opinion its usual coup de grace, still it would be a satisfaction to the Irish people to know that their grievances had been brought forward.

seconded the Amendment.

deprecated the insertion of the words proposed. He very much doubted whether they would have the effect of getting greater attention paid to Irish questions than under the proper application of the present system. He was sure the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), and those who sat near him, would themselves acknowledge that there was always a desire on the part of the Government so to arrange questions relating to Ireland that hon. Members might have an opportunity of discussing them on the Estimates. It had frequently happened that Irish Votes had been postponed for a considerable time for the convenience of Irish Members. He could assure hon. Gentlemen from Ireland that that was the spirit in which the Government desired to work, and that they always wished to consult the convenience of Irish Members by fixing such days for the discussion of Estimates relating to Ireland as might be convenient to them.

, in supporting the Amendment, pointed out that, with a special night for Irish subjects, the argument as to convenience would apply as well to discussion before going into Committee as to discussion in Committee. They had heard much of obstruction which had occurred during the present Parliament, and which, in his opinion, was without a parallel. A Bill called the Agricultural Holdings Bill was before them night after night, and hours were spent upon its consideration; and yet he understood that it had never to this day been in operation in any degree in any part of England.

opposed the Amendment. Its effect would be to give Irish Members an unfair advantage, and he did not see why Irish Members should have special opportunities of discussing their grievances which were not given to English and Scotch Members.

said, he generally voted with the hon. Members from Ireland for the removal of their grievances when these were real; but in the case of a fanciful grievance, which he held the one spoken of to be, he could not vote with them. There was a vast difference between the case of the removal of certain disabilities which he believed the Irish people did labour under and the present case, where they were not content with equality, but demanded superiority over England and Scotland. The description of Estimates mentioned in the Amendment were applicable to England and Scotland as much as to Ireland. Were the Irish Members to be allowed to bring forward, for instance, a Motion with regard to the administration of law in Ireland, and the Scotch Members not to be allowed an equal right to bring forward a Motion in regard to the administration of law in Scotland? In Ireland, for example, they got out of that Class of Estimates two or three times as much as Scotland; and why should Scotland not have the right to bring forward her great grievance in reference to her treatment in this respect compared with Ireland that got so much, while Scotland got so little? This being a claim not for equality, but for superiority, he must vote against the Amendment.

, referring to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement that the Irish Members had always had great facilities given them for bringing forward their grievances, said, he must be allowed to point out that what had happened before in reference to Irish grievances was no criterion of what would happen in future in consequence of the passing of the first Resolution. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had delivered what he doubtless considered was a conclusive speech. He asked why Irish Members should want the privilege of raising questions on going into Committee of Supply, when English and Scotch Members would have no such privilege? But if English and Scotch Members voluntarily surrendered their privileges, the Irish Members were made of different and sterner stuff. It might be that public virtue would take refuge amongst the Irish Members, and they alone might be permitted to make a stand to maintain the Constitution. Moreover, there was a great difference between the Irish and the English Civil Service Estimates, lie remembered a case in point. A public meeting was held in Phænix Park, Dublin. The Irish Government issued orders to the police to disperse the meeting by force, and that was actually done. Now, no one would contend that that was not a subject that might be fairly brought before the House of Commons. It was so brought before the House of Commons. The Irish Government repented of its conduct before a week had elapsed, and the meeting was held after all in the place it was intended to be held. The Irish Government receded from its position, and it was afterwards adjudged blamable in the Courts of Justice. But what would have happened if it had not been possible to bring forward the smallest grievance on going into the Irish Estimates? It would not have been in the power of any Irish Member, under this first Resolution, to call attention to that violation of Constitutional power. He therefore maintained that the circumstances would be entirely changed if this Resolution became a Rule of the House. For these reasons, it appeared to him that the hon. Member for Dungarvan had acted wisely and judiciously in proposing this Amendment, and if it were carried to a division he should certainly give it his hearty support.

said, he was always desirous of meeting the views of Irish Members if he could possibly do so: he admired the eloquence of the Irish Representatives, even if their arguments failed to convince him, and he thought they would be quite as able as English or Scotch Members to find opportunities for bringing their grievances before the House. Why should Irish Members desire additional privileges? They ought to blush to make such a demand. What did it virtually mean? That, whilst all other Members were clever enough to find means to bring their grievances before the House in the ordinary way, Irish Members alone were not competent to do so. As a friend to Ireland, he indignantly denied such an imputation upon her Representatives. Some Irish Members had, during the course of the debate, spoken as if there were those in the House who thought themselves superior to Irish Members. He was sure he might disclaim such an idea on behalf of every Member of the House; and, for his own part, he should be very sorry to lose the Members from the sister country. But he could not see why Irish Members alone should require special opportunities of bringing their grievances before the House. He dissented from any attempt to separate Irish Members from the great body of the House; and the House would be paying no compliment to the Irish Members by offering them such special protection as they claimed.

said, no matter how eloquent the speeches of the Irish Members, the grievances had remained; but they should cease, whether Irish affairs were managed in London or in Dublin. If not, they would see, as at present, compliments coming from the front Opposition Bench and stern refusal from the Government. He saw before him the Gentleman representing Hyde Park (Mr. Noel), the Gentleman who represented the workhouses (Mr. Sclater-Booth), and others; but where was the Chief Secretary; he was not in his place? Under the present system one Minister was responsible for every Irish Department, often a young man without claims on Ireland, and totally unacquainted with her position, and even without official training. He was completely in the hands of the officials in Dublin. The system was entirely separate from that which prevailed in England. It only required a man to show some ability in the matter of Irish affairs—as the late Chief Secretary did—and to show he was capable of doing something, to have him promoted, and another person sent in his stead. They might send constabulary soldiers to spy over the sermons in churches; but it was only when Press attacks w-ere made on the Lord Lieutenant that notice was taken of such an occurrence. That state of things could not occur in England, and would not occur in Ireland if ample opportunity were given to expose special abuses. Scotland was part and parcel of this Kingdom, and her affairs were managed at the Home Office. That was not the case with Ireland. He could assure the House that something more than an assimilation of the laws was required before Ireland became prosperous. The country wanted careful, well watched, and impartial administration. Heretofore, the administration had not been careful or impartial—it had been fall of abuses, and until these defects were remedied there would be no respect for British laws in Ireland.

said, it. had been suggested that Irish Members wanted to be supplied with facilities beyond the Rules of the House; but what really was the case was that the Irish Members said if the Government were going to restrict the liberties of the House hitherto enjoyed they, at least, would oppose it. They were standing there in defence of existing privileges, and not to ask for any special favour. Their position in the struggle they were making that night was not for the purpose of hindering the progress of the debate on the Rules in any way; but it was because the Irish Members believed sincerely the Government wished to take from them almost the last advantage which they possessed as Members from Ireland. It was argued that as they were steadily voted down by an arithmetical majority, and that nothing they could say would convert the majority, they had better hold their tongues. His answer was that there was a great advantage in their using their place in Parliament for leavening the public opinion of Parliament and the country, and of enlightening them on the way in which Ireland was governed, and the way in which she ought to be governed. The late Chief Justice Whiteside said the country was governed by Larcom and the police. Larcom, he might tell the House, was the Under Secretary of Dublin Castle, and why had he the government of the country in his hands? Because the House was too busy to think about discussing those questions on the Irish Estimates, which really concerned the Government of Ireland. Mr. Horsman, who graduated in Ireland, as did also the late Chief Secretary before he was appointed to look after the Zulus, was asked to say how he governed the country, and his reply was that he did the hunting and Carlisle did the dancing. Since 1674, however, Ireland had a real representation in the House; and at the peril of incurring the misunderstanding of the House, and often even facing its anger, Members had stood there to insist on debating, and thoroughly debating, Irish questions—often inconveniently, sometimes, perhaps, with somewhat of ill-temper, but still discussing them usefully. Whatever progress had been made in England—and there had been great progress in England within the last few years towards a better understanding of Irish questions, and towards a more friendly feeling between the two countries—was consequent on the excitation of English feeling by the debates on Irish grievances; and he had no hesitation in saying that Coercion Bills and Prison Bills, such as existed in Ireland, would not be tolerated in England so long if the English people had better known of their existence. He appealed to the House not to curtail the liberties of the Irish Members; because the present was the only arrangement by which they could protest against a majority which ignored the opinions of the Irish people constitutionally ex-pressed.

said, he thought the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) was a little unreasonable in denying to the Irish Members the right of doing something for themselves. The hon. Member had referred to other parts of the Kingdom. Those for whom he (Mr. Parnell) spoke would not be opposed to an extension of the principle which they claimed for themselves to Scotland and to England. On the contrary, he firmly believed that his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Donnell) would willingly agree, if the House desired it, to alter his Amendment so as to include those two countries. At the same time, many of the Irish Representatives believed that there were reasons why, perhaps, Ireland might ask to be exceptionally treated in this matter. There was a very exceptional Government in Ireland, which, practically, consisted of the Se- cretary to the Lord Lieutenant, who occasionally strolled into the House to see how the amusement was progressing. The Irish Members had not the opportunities which were enjoyed by English and Scotch Representatives of urging their grievances, in connection with the various Departments, upon the attention of the Legislature, and they were few in number in a House consisting of 650 Gentlemen. They were thus placed at a disadvantage from the start in balloting for a place on going into Committee of Supply; and that disadvantage would be increased one hundredfold by the action of the Resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if it were to be adopted without the Amendment which was now urged. That Amendment appeared to him to be a very small and reasonable proposition. The Leader of the House knew perfectly well that the Irish Members bad in no instance misused the privileges which they now possessed; that the questions which they had brought forward had been few in number; and that those questions had not unduly occupied the attention of the House. In these circumstances, surely a little concession of the description now proposed to Irish public opinion was well merited, and he believed that it would be received with kindly feelings. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might think he would facilitate the obtaining of the Irish Estimates by the course which he was following; but if that course were to be persisted in, there was no resource for the Representatives from Ireland but to refuse Votes on Account in connection with ail those questions in which they were interested, and thus compel the Government to bring-forward their Estimates at an early period of the Session, in order that they might be properly discussed. At present, their discussion was little bettor than a farce.

was strongly in favour of there being a more efficient and careful consideration of the Votes; but he could not support a proposal which would give his Irish Friends exceptional privileges.

said, he sympathized very much with the Irish Representatives in the complaints and grievances which they brought forward; but he could not support them when they sought exceptional privileges which he did not think they could properly ask for. He reminded them that the Rule of 1872, which was substantially the same as the proposal of the hon. and gallant Baronet, which the Government had accepted, was passed by a Parliament which had done more for Ireland than any other, and under no less a person than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, one of the best Friends that Ireland ever had. Under his Administration the Church of England and Ireland had been disestablished, and the Land Laws had been altered and brought into conformity with the wishes of the Irish people. It was during the Administration and in a Parliament which had accomplished these things, and many others, for the good of Ireland, that the Rule he was speaking of had been passed, and no Irish Member then, that he could call to mind, had objected to it. Under the circumstances, therefore, he appealed to the Irish Members to withdraw the Amendment.

said, the Irish Members were not seeking any exceptional privileges. They simply asked to be allowed to retain those rights which English and Scotch Representatives had willingly given up at the instigation of the two front Benches on either side of the House. This was nothing more nor less than a combination between those two Benches. Those for whom he spoke had done their best to preserve the privileges of the House; but they were the trustees of a poor and weak nation. It was trampled on by the Government Session after Session. ["Oh!"] They were the trustees of a people who were insulted day after day. ["Oh!"] Why, in the course of the recent debate upon the Irish Franchise Question, one Representative—partly an official Member, for he was private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant—had spoken in a manner which was grossly insulting to Ireland and her people. The Government refused to give Ireland equality of privileges; and its inhabitants were mocked year after year by being told in articles in English newspapers and speeches from the two front Benches in the House that they had the same privileges as England enjoyed. They were now going to take away from the Irish Members even the facility of making their complaints known. Did they suppose that Irish Members, who had been driven to move this Amendment against their will, would now withdraw it? They were perfectly mistaken if they thought they would do anything of the kind. He did not care how small the number might be in the division in favour of the Amendment—it would at least be a protest. He knew hon. Members who represented English and Scotch constituencies, who often voted with the Irish Members, but who would not do so as regarded this Amendment—and for why? Because they knew that in a weak moment they had given up their privileges; and they now saw the stubborn fight the Irish Members were making for the possession of theirs—therefore, the English and Scotch Members would not vote with them, because it would imply that they had not endeavoured sufficiently to keep their own privileges. The Irish Party would carry with them into the Lobby none but the Irish votes; yet it would be a protest which would go farther and would remain on record as a proof or test that they had done what they could to help the English Members to retain their privileges, and that the English Members did not support them when they wanted to retain theirs. Let that fact be known to the country, and it would be known in history; though he ventured to say that this Rule would not remain many years unaltered, because it would he found to trench too much on the privileges of the Members who would form the new Parliament.

said, he did not think the House would accept the proposal of the hon. Member, inasmuch as it could only have the effect of introducing great confusion into the conduct of Business as to what was and was not admissible in the way of Amendment to the Motion to go into Committee of Supply. If the Resolution as it was drawn were adopted, there would remain abundant opportunities for calling attention to any grievances which might be alleged to have resulted from mismanagement on the part of the Government, and those opportunities were made conspicuous by the action of hon. Members on the other side.

said, he had in previous divisions voted in the minority, but on the present occasion lie should support Her Majesty's Government; because he regarded the Amendment before the House as an attempt to re open a question which he thought had been compromised. It might be said that every grievance worthy of being made the subject of an Amendment on going into Committee of Supply was directly or indirectly a grievance arising out of the conduct of the Government, or the administration of the law. The proposed Amendment, therefore, simply raised in another form the question already decided by the House.

denied that every Amendment which was moved on the Motion to go into Committee of Supply was necessarily a question calling attention to a grievance arising out of the conduct of the Government or the administration of the laws; and it was not a good omen that the Members of the Liberal Party, such as the one who had just spoken, should support the Government in their policy of gagging and despotism. Not only the liberties of the Irish people, but those of the English people, were being sacrificed; and he repeated that it was a curious thing to see that this policy was supported by Members of the Liberal Party, who desired to succeed the present Party in the reins of power.

said, that if the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) were really a sound one, he should be inclined to appeal to his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) not to press the Amendment.

remarked that he would give his hearty support to the Amendment of the lion. Member for Meath, because it involved, he thought, a question of great importance to Irish Members, who represented a country where it could not be said that the laws were administered as fairly and equitably as in England. It was, unfortunately, the case that in too many instances legal appointments in that country were bestowed as a reward for services to a particular Party. That principle had boon extended even to the Bench; and there was a time when men who had served their Party in that House at the expense of their own honour and conscience were actually raised to the Irish Bench. English Members might be proud that the Judicial Bench in this country had never been disgraced in that way. There had been many offices in Ireland which had been filled up by persons whose sole claims consisted of services, sometimes of a doubtful character, which they had rendered to their Party; and therefore he maintained that the Amendment of his hon. Friend was worthy of consideration, when they took into account the position which Ireland held in that respect. By the Constitution, Ireland was allowed to be represented in that House; and yet they were about to deny to her Representatives the light of criticizing the action of the men whom the Government sent, against their wish, to administer justice in that country. He thought that his hon. Friend deserved the thanks of every liberty-loving man in that House for bringing forward this Amendment; and he sincerely hoped that a good many Members on both sides would be found to support it. He had not taken much part in these discussions; but he must say that, in his humble judgment, the best of the argument had been entirely on the side of the men who had striven to protect the House with its traditions of 600 years of freedom, and the defence of public right against the attempt of a Minister, however powerful, to force his will upon it. It was still not too late to say to the Minister that if he had any regard for the honour of the institutions which Ministers were so much in the habit of extolling at the Mansion House and elsewhere, he would, at any rate, accede to the Amendment, if he could not altogether abandon the Resolution.

observed that the Amendment raised a very different point to that which usually arose out of Motions moved as Amendments to the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair. The laws in Ireland were administered by persons who received no salaries, and to whom no money was voted directly or indirectly; so that, in reality, there would be no opportunity during the progress of Votes through Committee whereby to impugn their conduct, should it be thought necessary. Really, in many cases, administration of the law was of the most partial character, and the instances in which magistrates misconducted themselves were by no means rare. Therefore, they ought to have an opportunity, as the occasion arose, of discussing the conduct of the great unpaid. In the case of the Judges it was altogether different, because they could move to reduce their salaries, and perhaps it might become necessary to do so. Some of their Judges administered the law in a manner which made it a burlesque. He had been told by a gentleman connected with the Profession that one of the Judges now on the Bench was thoroughly incapable of trying criminal cases, because his invariable custom was to go for a conviction. What, then, could they expect from the great unpaid, who, in many cases, were thoroughly ignorant of their duties, and were in all cases greatly prejudiced? The Government would do well, therefore, to agree to the Amendment, and thus give an opportunity to hon. Members to raise questions as to the administration of the laws in a Constitutional manner.

thought the Amendment was one deserving of the attention of the Government. The Government would lose nothing by accepting it, and they would, further, confer a fair and reasonable boon upon Members on Fridays.

supported the Amendment.

pointed out the inconvenience to private Members which arose on Fridays, when Supply was the first Order of the Day, from their being frequently unable to bring their Motions to the test of a Division, owing to the fact that any of the preceding Motions happened to have been negatived. He did not, however, know whether the present Amendment would furnish the best means of obviating that inconvenience.

disapproved of the Amendment. There had been quite enough in the way of innovation in the conduct of the Business of the House, and in this case matters might with advantage be left as they were. The present Rule imported something of elasticity into their forms, and gave an opening for discussions on topics worthy of consideration, but not calling for cut-and-dry Resolutions. It would be a clear loss to the facile powers of the House if this free and easy method were abolished, and a hard-and-fast compulsion of Divisions on all days substituted.

, without entering into the merits of the question, pointed out that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the Government to make the proposed alteration. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, as he apprehended it would not be, in order to attempt to repeal, as it were by a side wind, a Standing Order of the House in accordance with which Supply was set down on the Notice Paper as the first Business on Fridays.

said, the system of "calling attention" was almost unheard of when he first entered Parliament. It was a practice which had the effect of debarring the House from expressing an opinion, and, at the same time, enabled individual Members tyrannically to occupy the attention of the House.

said, he quite agreed with what had been said as to the undesirable practice of invariably negativing the first Motion for going into Supply. He did not believe it was of any advantage to the Government; because the effect was that many of the Motions that remained were put down for some other day. He did not know whether any practical remedy could be adopted against this practice; but it was one which, no doubt, it would be well to put a stop to. With regard to the Amendment that had been moved, there was one suggestion he wished to make for the consideration of Members who delighted to call themselves independent. They ought to recollect that if Friday were converted from an Order Day into a Notice Day, the probability of a "Count-out" on Friday would be increased. At present, it was very much to the interest of the Government to keep a House on Friday; but this would no longer be the case if Friday were converted into a Notice Day. The gain, if any, which the independent Members would obtain would be, to a considerable extent, neutralized by the great risk of losing the evening altogether.

suggested that the Rules of the House might be altered so far as to allow a Division on every Motion brought forward as an Amendment to the Motion that the Speaker should leave the Chair.

said, he was very much disappointed with the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had promised last year to give private Members compensation by making Friday a Motion night instead of a Supply night. Now he seemed to think that private Members ought to have no compensation at all for their loss in giving up Mondays.

supported the Amendment.

suggested that, instead of the Speaker putting the Question in a form which, if affirmed, prevented any Amendment, subsequent to the first being voted upon, on a Supply night, he might put it, "That the Amendment be affirmed," and this would allow of every subsequent one being voted upon. The Government might also revert to the old practice of keeping a House on Fridays.

said, the next Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Dun-garvan (Mr. O'Donnell); but as he was prevented from moving it by the Rules of debate, he had undertaken to move it for him. It was to add, at the end of the amended Resolution—

"Provided always, That when Notice of a Motion has been given which, but for this Rule, would have been moved on a Monday, the next succeeding Committee of Ways and Means shall be a first Order of the Day, and Notices applicable on going into Committee of Supply on Monday shall he transferred to going into Committee on Ways and Means."

He expected the Government would accept the Amendment, for the reason that originally Ways and Means was included in Supply; but during the early stages of the discussion on this question the Government agreed to withdraw Ways and Means from the operation of the Rule. The object of the Amendment was to give an opportunity of discussing general questions on the Motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means. If the Government assented to this principle it could only be reasonable to make Ways and Means the first Order, as otherwise these questions might be brought on at a very late hour.

said, the hon. Member could not have expected the Amendment to be accepted by the Government. According to it, the next succeeding Committee of Ways and Means would be a Wednesday, for it was a Standing Order of the House that Ways and Means should always be on the Paper on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Therefore, the next day for the Committee would be Wednesday. The hon. Member next proposed that the Committee on that day should have precedence. But by the Rules of the House Bills of private Members had precedence on Wednesdays. Therefore, this proposal would create considerable confusion. He did not himself see what object would be gained by the Amendment; because if any hon. Member failed to bring on his Motion on Committee of Supply he could himself postpone it to the next occasion of Ways and Means, with the exception, of course, that he could not take precedence of those hon. Members who had already put their Motions. They would only be encumbering themselves by passing this Resolution.

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had very clearly and lucidly shown that the concession of the Committee of Ways and Means, on which lie laid so much stress last week, did not amount to anything at all. He had asked the House to give the Government a great deal of credit for their concessions with regard to the Committee of Ways and Means; but as it was now admitted that by the present Standing Orders the Committee was only fixed for certain days, it was quite clear that to call attention to grievances previously would be very little use. It followed conclusively that the Government had made a concession which was, in fact, no concession whatever; and he strongly suspected that several other so-called concessions should be cast under the same head.

said, by the advice of his lion. Friend the Member for Dun-garvan (Mr. O'Donnell) he would withdraw the Amendment.

said, there were other Resolutions on the Paper, but it would be obviously impossible to move them at that hour. He should propose, therefore, that they stand over till Thursday week. On Thursday his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War would introduce the Mutiny Bill; and he hoped on that day to take Supply as the first Order for the purpose of taking some Supplementary Estimates, which would be presented next day—Tuesday—for the purpose of providing for the Exchequer Bonds, shortly falling due. He hoped to lay the Estimates on the Table to-night (Tuesday), to have them in the hands of Members on Wednesday, and to go into Committee of Supply on Thursday.

supposed that the Orders of the Day would be postponed after Supply had been taken till the Mutiny Bill had been brought in.

asked whether the Government could bring on the Mutiny Bill in that way before the Army Estimates had been submitted?

said, it was perfectly competent for the Government to do this. The Mutiny Bill of this year would consist of two parts—one that which he proposed to introduce on Thursday, and the other the annual Bill, which gave the actual control over the Force.

said, he had always understood that the Mutiny Bill could not be introduced till after the Army Estimates had been voted. Was this a change that the Government was introducing; and, if so, what authority had they for making it?

said, the Secretary of State for War proposed to introduce on Thursday what was, in fact, an Army Discipline Bill; and this, when passed, would be a permanent Act. He would also introduce afterwards a short Mutiny Bill, which would have to be passed year by year, and which undoubtedly could not be introduced until the Army Estimates had been brought in.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it gave the Government power by an Order in Council to group certain counties and boroughs together for the purpose of the Spring Assizes, as it would be in the knowledge of some hon. Members had already been done in the case of the Winter Assizes. The Spring Assizes would shortly commence; and it was very important, therefore, that this Bill should be at once passed. Its object was to effect an economy of time and labour; and therefore he hoped the House would not object to read it a second time.

thought more time should have been given for considering the bearing of this important measure. Did it apply to Ireland? ["No!"] If it did not, his objections to it were, to a certain extent, removed; but, at the same time, he doubted whether it was desirable to have additional Assizes. The Bill of last year had not worked particularly well. In any case, however, he thought the practice of bringing in Bills of that importance at so late an hour was to be deprecated.

said, the Assizes began on the 22nd of next month; and unless this Bill passed it would be necessary for the Judges to go to each town on the Circuit, to the great expense of the country, the jurors, and everybody else. The Bill was simply to enable small counties to be grouped together, in order to save expense at the Spring Assizes.

said, he wished to ask a Question on a point of Order. He understood the hon. Member for Cumberland had given Notice of an Amendment to the Bill?

He has withdrawn it.

asked the House whether it was a right and proper thing to ask them to pass a Bill which was not printed? [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: Oh, yes, it is.] He asked for the Bill within the last ten minutes at the Office, and was told that he could not have one, as the Bill was not printed. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: It was circulated last Saturday.] As a matter of fact, he had asked for it within the last ten minutes, and told that he could not have it.

said, the Bill appeared to him to be one of a merely temporary nature. There was a difficulty in regard to the Spring Assizes which could only be got over by the passage of a short Act of this kind. He should like to ask whether this Bill was to be considered as finally settling the question of the arrangement of the Assizes, or whether, even supposing the Bill passed, the House might not have an opportunity hereafter of discussing the whole question?

hoped the House would allow him to explain that this Bill was not at all meant as a settlement of the question. The House would have another opportunity of fully discussing the whole matter.

said, he very much disliked the principle of the Bill, and he opposed the second reading; but as the feeling of the House was evidently very much in favour of the measure, and there was a great disposition to pass it, he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing. Since then he had communicated with his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), and that Gentleman had accepted some suggestions he had made, which seemed to him to get rid of the dangers to the liberty of the subject. He would not, therefore, now be under the necessity of further opposing the Bill, and he should offer no objection to the Speaker leaving the Chair.

said, the object of the Amendment of which he had given Notice was to prevent the Bill being made absolute, so far as regarded persons who had a pecuniary interest in retaining persons under their charge. In this respect the Bill ought to be limited, and to be treated merely as an experiment. He, therefore, proposed that the Act should only extend to the year 1886, by adding at the end of the clause—

"And in the case of retreats kept by private persons shall cease and determine on the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and eighty six."

Amendment moved at end of Clause to add—

"And in the case of retreats kept by private persons shall cease and determine on the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and eighty six." —(Mr. Dillwyn.)

said, he had no objection to the Amendment which only affected retreats kept by private persons for their own profit. If it were passed, however, it would be necessary further on to introduce a definition into the Bill exempting from the operation of this Amendment institutions maintained by private charity, which were not open to the objection raised by the hon. Member for Swansea.

said, the wording of the Amendment was rather awkward, because it might be very desirable that the person going before a magistrate should be accompanied by someone.

said, that was just the object he had in view. He did not want a man to go to the Justice in a state of drunkenness; but he wished him to go when he was sober, and knew what he was about. When a man really did not know what he was about, he ought not to be able to sign away his liberty in this manner.

thought the Amendment was not so objectionable as his hon. Friend (Mr. Mitchell Henry) thought. Under the clause as it stood the habitual drunkard would go before the Justice with his friends, and produce such evidence as was necessary to prove that the man was an habitual drunkard. Then, if the Amendment were added, the Justice would retire with the habitual drunkard, and con- vince himself, if necessary, that it was the habitual drunkard's own desire to have himself committed. In that way, the object of his hon. Friend, that the man's promise should not be unjustly obtained, would be attained.

said, the Amendment would be a most disagreeable one to enforce. The Justice might be an aged gentleman, and it would be very unpleasant for him to be required to go into a private room with an individual who came before him placarded, as it were, with the name of habitual drunkard, and who might be on the very verge of delirium tremens, and who, when he got him into the private room, might take it into his head to ill-treat him. He submitted that this was not an Amendment which would improve the Bill in any substantial degree, or would in any particular way protect the liberty of the subject; while it might place gentlemen who were intrusted with the administration of the law in a very painful and invidious position.

said, the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down seemed to him a strong argument for the Amendment. The Bill was not intended to affect people who were on the verge of delirium tremens, or to give a Justice of the Peace power to send such persons into retirement. The Bill really was intended for persons who were in the habit of getting intoxicated, and who, being perfectly conscious of their failing, were yet unable by the present law to sign away their liberty.

said, the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), having been strongly opposed to the Bill in the first instance, was now desirous to make it as inoperative as possible. The object of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had been to make terms with him; and he had therefore accepted, to a considerable extent, the Amendments of the hon. Member. Of course, one object of the Bill was to induce persons voluntarily to enter these retreats; but, at the same time, he ventured to think there might be cases in which a certain amount of pressure, not of an unfriendly kind, and not in the nature of compulsion, should be brought to bear to induce these drunkards to enter a retreat, and where this was so it would be unnecessary that they should go before the Justice, accompanied by their friends. The Amendment would defeat the benevolent design of the Bill; and he could not but think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, in his desire to propitiate the hon. Member for Swansea, had accepted this Amendment too readily, and had fallen into a trap. He did not suppose for a moment the Amendment would be withdrawn in consequence of what he said; but he did think that it would do harm in the very cases with which the Bill was especially designed to deal.

said, a man in a state of half-maudlin repentance might be induced and wheedled into going before a magistrate, not liking to say no to his friends, although all the time he did not really wish it; and therefore he thought the Amendment more important than other hon. Members apparently considered it to be. He was sure that the hon. Members did not wish a man to go into a retreat against his own inclinations; and he only wished to make sure that nobody went in except of their own free will.

said, it was by no means certain that the Amendment would have the effect intended by the hon. Member for Swansea, and the presence of a third person might act as a check on the Justice signing too hastily. On the other hand, it might very well be that a person applying for an order to enter one of these retreats might be brusque, offensive, or even a little alarming, in his demeanour, and the magistrate might consider that quite sufficient proof, and sign the warrant off straight at once.

said, the whole object of the Bill was to give habitual drunkards an opportunity of retrieving their character; and it did not much matter whether, when they applied to enter a retreat, they were in a half-maudlin state or not. If the man was in that state the magistrate could decline, under the provisions of the Act, to exercise his functions; while, on the other hand, if the man was sufficiently himself to sign away his own freedom, that would only be quite carrying out the object of the Act.

thought there ought to be an addition to the clause, so as to deal with the case of a licensee who had received money for a patient. There ought to be a provision that he should not go out at once, but should remain for a certain time.

said, the Iron. Member really ought not to press his Amendment. If he entertained such views, he ought to have moved the rejection of the Bill. The object of the' Bill was to place persons in a position where they could not change their minds, and get out of one of these retreats as soon as they had a wish to do so. The clause directly enabled them to do that. It was true the patient must give a week's notice. He spoke under the correction of persons who knew more of these diseases than he did, when he said that this would make very little difference. On the other hand, there was no limit to the trouble which a patient might give. He might apply to one Justice after another, going in turn to all the Justices on the Bench, until he found one who took a crotchety view of this question, and lot him out. He appreciated most fully the desire of the hon. Gentleman to protect the liberty of the subject, and he voted with him in his last Amendment; but this proposal would really defeat the whole object of the Bill.

said, he sat on the Committee which inquired into this question throe years ago, and he quite agreed with the noble Lord that the Amendment which had been proposed would overthrow the Bill. Habitual drunkards were persons who were habitually getting drunk and being sorry for it afterwards—persons whose infirmity of mind made it necessary to legislate for them. They were, in fact, in a manner, insane persons, having sober and lucid moments. In those sober and lucid moments they formed good resolutions, which they were not able to carry out, and so relapsed again into drunkenness. The object of the Bill was that when they had those favourable impulses, after a debauch of drunkenness, they should be enabled to place themselves under control in one of these retreats for a certain length of time. The habitual drunkard could not expect to be cured by one incarceration. He might go in for two or three months, and be discharged, and relapse again. That would almost certainly happen, because all experience showed that an habitual drunkard was only cured by a long period of incarceration in a retreat. Next time, then, the patient would agree to go there for eight or nine months, or perhaps a year, and then he would be radically cured. But under this Amendment, by the time his system had got rid of all the alcohol it contained, and the patient was beginning to get into sound health, he would wish to be out again, and the consequence would be that he would be able of his own desire to remove himself from that remedial legislation which it was the very object of this Bill to provide. Anybody under the Bill would be able to place himself in one of these retreats for a period in no case longer than 12 months, and certainly 12 months was a very short time taken out of the life of a man in which to cure him thoroughly of so terrible a disease as that of habitual drunkenness, a disease, too, which brought so many evils upon society. For his part, he greatly pitied his hon. Friend in charge of the Bill. He could hardly approve of this Amendment, and yet he knew perfectly well that the Forms of the House of Commons would enable the hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea to defeat the Bill if his opposition were continued. Therefore, he had been obliged to make terms with him, and to give way on Amendments of this kind. He hoped, however, that the House would come to his assistance, and would so deal with the Bill that, when passed, it should be a real good measure.

hoped the Committee would not only stand between the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) and the Bill, but that it would also stand between the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) and his Bill. On the last division, that hon. Member, by telling with the hon. Member for Swansea, had voted distinctly against what were the interests of his own Bill. The fact was the hon. Member for Glasgow had had a bad time of it with the hon. Member for Swansea, and, no doubt, he felt bound to vote in that way in fulfilment of his compact. But that only the more made it the duty of the Committee to befriend the Bill, and to protect it from the danger in which it was placed by its author. The one object of the Bill, when once an habitual drunkard had gone into a retreat, was to detain him there as long as the Bill permitted; and there would be little or no chance of reforming him if the Amendment were carried. He would only have to apply to a Justice to let him out, and then the whole object of the Bill would be defeated. It had happened to him, in consequence of the name he bore—the same as that of a former advocate of this measure—to receive a great many communications on this subject, and that must be his excuse for taking part in the debate. Many of the cases he had heard of would not be remedied at all by remaining a week or two in the retreat. The hon. Member for Swansea was endeavouring, by every means in his power, to weaken the Bill, and he would entreat the Committee to resist his Amendment.

said, if the Bill was a good one, they certainly ought to reject the Amendment; be- cause, if carried, it would render the measure perfectly useless. A drunkard would get sober in a week, or less, and then he would apply to a magistrate; and no magistrate, he felt certain, would consider himself justified in detaining a sober man in a retreat if he wished to get out. Therefore, he hoped this Amendment would be rejected.

said, it was very desirable that proper safeguards should be placed on the powers given by the Bill, and certainly every reasonable facility should be given to a man to get out if he wanted. But the object of the hon. Member for Swansea would be attained with equal effect by the insertion of the words now proposed in Clause 17. That clause enabled a Justice of the Peace, at the request of the licensee, to grant a licence to the person in the retreat to go out. The addition of a few words so as to include all applications from this person also would fairly meet the case. Suppose, for instance, after a man had been in for a fortnight or three weeks he felt himself a changed being, a sober man, and his friends were willing to take charge of him, they could then obtain a licence and take him out, or he could apply for it himself and go out.

said, if the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary (Sir Matthew Ridley) would propose that alteration in Clause 17, he would accept the suggestion.

said, he should oppose any such proposal. The whole principle of the Bill was that the habitual drunkard should be placed in a position in which he could not, of his own action, escape from these retreats. Of course, if the Amendment were inserted in Clause 17, the same result would follow as if the words were put in. The patient would go the round of the magistrates, until he found one who would give him a licence—perhaps against the advice of the licensee who had charge of him—and the whole value of the Bill would be destroyed.

said, this Amendment should be opposed in the interests of the drunkard himself. If he knew that he had an opportunity of getting out of these retreats whenever he thought desirable, his mind would be kept in a state of constant turmoil, and he would always be thinking that he ought to be let out. The principal object of these retreats was to produce perfect tranquillity in the mind of the patient. If he knew he was in for a certain time he would remain there quietly, and go out at the end a bettor man. But if these words were inserted in either this clause or the 17th clause, the patient would be in a constant state of agitation; and therefore, for his sake, it would be a cruel thing to pass the Amendment.

Do I understand that the Amendment is withdrawn?

said, he would withdraw it, on the understanding that the Under Secretary (Sir Matthew Ridley) would propose the Amendment he had sketched out when Clause 17 came on. He admitted that he objected to the principle of the Bill, and he was doing his best to minimize its evils. He preferred his own Amendment; but he would, nevertheless, accept the suggestion of the Under Secretary.

said, the provision in the Bill for granting licences was intended for a numerous class of persons who could not afford to submit to any prolonged detention, and who, if they were obliged to do so, would prefer not to submit to any restraint whatever. Many cases had come under his notice of gentlemen belonging to certain Professions who for a long time would be perfectly sober and rational, and very anxious to keep free from the weakness of which they were perfectly well aware; but every now and then they would break out and go desperate lengths. It occurred to the promoters of the Bill that many gentlemen who, from the nature of their occupation, could not submit to a long incarceration, might be induced to put themselves under restraint for a short time, on the understanding that they should be let out under licence under the care of friends. These persons would hold licences, and the fact of their escaping from the care of their friend, or giving way to intemperate habits contrary to his advice and command, would be deemed a revocation of the licence. Then the patient could be at once taken back to the retreat, instead of being allowed to go on a prolonged drinking bout.

hoped the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary would not give way to the suggestion. If the Amendment were carried, a man might make 52 applications to go out during the year he was under restraint, and even more, if there were several Justices resident in his district. The Amendment would make the Bill unpractical and absurd. He hoped the lion. Baronet would give no such pledge. It was one thing to make a suggestion; if, on the other hand, an Amendment was moved from the Government Bench, it largely increased the difficulties of the promoters of the Bill.

said, he certainly never intended to convey that he would move the words which he had suggested would be more fitly inserted, if at all, in Clause 17. It would, of course, be his duty later on to consider how the Bill affected his Department; but before putting down Amendments, he was anxious to see how the Bill would be shaped in Committee.

said, he would himself propose the words as suggested.

I must point out to the hon. Member for Glasgow that Clause 12 cannot be passed in the present form, as the Committee has not yet reported the Resolutions on the Bill.

said, he would postpone that clause, and Clause 13, till the Report.

said, he would move, as suggested by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary, in page 6, line 3, after "drunkard" to insert—

"Or at the request of such person, a clear week's notice having "been given by him or her to the licensee of the retreat, may."

He would only say, in answer to what had fallen from his hon. Friends, that of course the magistrate would use his discretion, and would not grant a licence without due inquiry. Something had been said of the American system; but he happened to have some American papers sent him the other day, in which it was said that these retreats had broken down in that country, and been an entire failure.

said, if his hon. Friend had read all that the American newspapers had said about these retreats, he would have learned that one great reason why they had failed was because the period of detention was not long enough. Another point brought out very strongly by a very painstaking and patient Committee, which sat on this subject upstairs three years ago, was that to be effectual the confinement of the patient must be for a considerable period of time, or it was perfectly useless. The Committee must remember that this Bill was not intended for persons who occasionally got drunk, but for persons who were almost insane, who were quite unable to control themselves, who dissipated their property, and brought untold misery on their families by their craving for drink, and yet who were not mad enough to be called insane. So far from this power of leaving the retreat being any good to such people, it would be a great evil inflicted upon them.

said, the Amendment did not read, for it spoke of "such person" although there was no "person" previously mentioned in the clause. As to the principle of it, he could only point out, as he had done before, that if this power of appealing to magistrates were given, a man would be certain to find some Justice who would give the required licence. That would result in removing the control which it was the object of the Bill to confer. As to what was said about America, the principle of the Bill had already been discussed, and these points were then satisfactorily answered. In any case, that objection struck at the Bill itself, and should have been raised on the second reading.

said, the hon. Member for Swansea appeared to claim the support of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department for his Amendment, but he (Mr. Dalrymple) understood that the Under Secretary did not do more than suggest that this was a suitable place to propose the Amendment; and he certainly did not understand him to say he would support it. The great point was to get the patient into one of these retreats, and not to let him be able to leave it prematurely, which would do him the greatest possible harm. He certainly should oppose the Amendment, and would divide upon it, even if no one else would do so.

said, the Amendment would place the Justice of the Peace in a very great difficulty. A man might be sufficiently sober to be quite fit apparently to go out; and yet his craving for liquor at that very time might make that exactly the position in which he ought not to be.

said, the keeper of the retreat was the man most interested in keeping people in, and yet it was solely on his petition that they were to be allowed to get out; and as regarded the argument of the noble Lord opposite (Earl Percy), who seemed afraid of facile Justices, he asked if Justices might not be as easily influenced to put men into these retreats as the noble Lord seemed to think they would be to let them out? It might even happen that a Justice might be a relative of the patient, and pecuniarily interested in shutting him up. Care should be taken that there were not too many facilities in the Bill for putting persons in these retreats.

said, the hon. Member had overlooked the very strong safeguards in Clause 16.

said, he would advise the hon. Member for Swansea not to go into the Lobby with so small a number of Members again. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newde-gate) had formed a Schedule of all Members who voted in Divisions under 20; and if the hon. Member divided again he would find himself scheduled.

pointed out that the Amendment did not read.

explained that the Amendment applied to Clause 22.

said, that the hon. Member was now too late to move it.

said, he would bring it up on the Report. He would then move to insert in place of the words "lawful authority" the words "the authority of the licensee or the medical officer of the retreat." The only question was as to with whom the right to order these things rested, and the Amendment cleared that up.

asked whether the authority of the licensee, when he was not a properly qualified medical officer, was sufficient for the administration of narcotics and the other drugs mentioned? If they left the administration of these drugs to a person who was not a skilled practitioner, they might have serious consequences.

said, it would be the business of the licensee to conduct the institution in such a way that his administration should be attended with the greatest amount of success. If he were to allow the indiscriminate use of stimulants in the retreat he would defeat his own object, and very soon come to the ground. It was very desirable to guard against any improper use of stimulants, but occasions might occur on which it would be necessary to administer something of this kind on the spot; and if the medical officer were not there, the insertion of the suggested words would enable the licensee to use them. Otherwise, no person could administer stimulants without being liable to some penalty.

said, he remembered a ease in which some patients were treated with hydrate of chloral, or something of that sort, to keep them quiet and make them amenable to discipline, and death was the result. However that might be, the licensee might be tempted to treat unruly and undisciplined patients in this way; and if the licensee were not a medical man and acquainted with drugs the most serious consequences might happen.

said, in the ease referred to a medical man administered the drugs, and therefore there was no want of the proper qualification. In the case of sleeplessness arising from the want of drink there was a very considerable difference of opinion among medical men as to the use of narcotics and stimulants, and it was certainly not the intention that unqualified and uneducated licensees should treat such case.

said, as to bringing stimulants on to the premises, authority might be intrusted either to the licensee or the medical officer. He would suggest that the words should run thus—

"Without the authority of the licensee or the medical officer "brings into any retreat or without the authority of the medical officer of the retreat, except in case of urgent necessity gives or supplies," &c.

In case of urgent necessity there would be power to do it; while, in the case of general treatment, it would only be fair to require the authority of the medical officer. That would meet the objection.

said, he should move an Amendment here, undeterred by the warning of his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Nolan), and he did hope the Home Office would support him a little more strongly. The clause dealt with the re-capture of escaped habitual drunkards, and he thought it would give rise to great abuse of the law. Where a man escaped he ought not to be liable to re-capture, at any rate by the servants of the retreat; but a proper officer should be employed. He entirely objected to Jack, Tom, or Harry being intrusted with this power, and he would move, in line 26, to leave out "by any officer, attendant, servant, or other person employed in or about such retreat."

said, nothing could be more dangerous than to intrust the liberty of any man at large to the mere servant of any licensee in the general words of the clause. It was not done in the case of a lunatic asylum, so far as he was aware, though there were stronger reasons there for the detention and recovery of a man who had escaped. There was no limitation to the power of the clause, and a man who had been at liberty a fortnight or more might be taken back to the asylum. The framer of the Bill ought to consider the whole structure of the clause. He did not know exactly what a peace officer meant. It meant one thing in England, and another in Scotland. He had also the greatest reluctance to intrust to any man—peace officer, constable, or anyone else—the right of interfering with the liberty of the subject, without a warrant at his back. If he had a warrant, it should either come from the licensee, or some person responsible for his agent. He heartily supported the Amendment.

thought the suggestion a good one; but pointed out that the licence was intended to give greater freedom to the patients, and prevent the necessity for always keeping them within four walls.

said, the clause was far too wide. If a peace officer had a warrant they would know whence he got his right to act; but to give him the power to act without a warrant seemed to him very dangerous, and contrary to all precedent. He would move to substitute the word "by" for the word "without" in page 7, line 28.

thought it would be better to postpone the whole clause, or allow the Law Officers of the Crown to confer with the Home Office and the hon. Member for Glasgow.

said, his hon. and learned Friend and Colleague had undertaken to see the clause was properly settled; but they certainly ought not to pass it as it stood, and it should be amended as suggested.

said, it was useless to oppose an Amendment of the clause supported as it was; but it had entirely changed the character of the clause. It might not be right to give to the attendant of an institution the power of arrest without warrant; but to call in an officer of the peace and to arm him with a warrant was to introduce machinery foreign to the character of the Bill. He suggested that the clause should be withdrawn for the present.