acquainted the House that he had this day received from. Mr. Bradlaugh, one of the Members for Northampton, a Letter which he read to the House as follows:—

further stated, that, bearing in mind all the circumstances that surrounded the claim of Mr. Bradlaugh to take his seat, he felt bound to desire the instructions of the House, before he called upon Mr. Bradlaugh to come to the Table.

Sir, as I do not understand that the Prime Minister proposes to offer any counsel to the House upon this question, I need offer no apology for presenting myself. I assume that those who have on several previous occasions voted against allowing Mr. Bradlaugh to go through the form of repeating the words of the Oath will still remain of the same opinion, without that opinion being at all affected by circumstances which have recently taken place; and I therefore shall, without any comment, propose the same Resolution which I have upon previous occasions proposed, the effect of which will be to exclude Mr. Bradlaugh from going through the form of repeating the words of the Oath which is prescribed for Members of Parliament. I observe in the letter you, Sir, have communicated to the House, that Mr. Bradlaugh expresses a desire to be heard at the Bar of the House in support of his claim. For my part, I see no objection and I shall certainly offer no opposition to his being heard at the Bar in support of his claim. That does not at all affect the terms of the Motion which I have now the honour of placing in your hands.

Sir, after hearing you read the letter which you have received from the junior Member for Northampton, I was under an erroneous impression that probably the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Northampton, who has been the natural and legitimate Representative of his Colleague in all matters—in all lawful matters—relating to this controversy, would rise and make a Motion upon it. But that did not take place, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite was called upon. I am bound to say I should have had no objection whatever to make to the very proper Motion which the right hon. Gentleman has made. I think, perhaps, upon the whole, it rests more appropriately with him than with me in the circumstances; I think it is a compliance with the principles of equity, and it shows a disposition, within the limits of conscientious conviction, to pay due respect to the views of a constituency in the exercise of a Constitutional duty. I give the right hon. Gentleman full credit for having, on that ground, invited criticism in moving that we hear Mr. Bradlaugh.

What I stated was that I should move the same Resolution that I have moved on previous occasions, that Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to take the Oath, that being the first and main point of the letter which he has addressed to the Speaker. With regard to the second part of that letter, in which Mr. Bradlaugh expresses a desire that he should be heard at the Bar of the House, I stated that I could see and should offer no objection to his being heard at the Bar. It is not for me to move that he should be hoard at the Bar.

I beg to move that Mr. Bradlaugh be heard at the Bar.

Sir, I rise to Order. Is it competent for the hon. Member to make that Motion when another Motion is before you?

As I understood, the House appeared to be in doubt whether Mr. Bradlaugh should be heard at the Bar. I will take the pleasure of the House on that matter.

Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of the House, I desire to submit a very few words in support of my right to take the Oath and my seat, pursuant to my return. I was elected on the 4th of March last year, and since that election I have not presented myself for the purpose of taking my seat. The House, after my election, expressed its pleasure that I should not be permitted to obey the law last Session. This Session the House has been engaged in considering a measure which, if it had passed, would have rendered it possible, supposing my constituents to have re-elected me, for me to have taken my seat on Affirmation. Last night the House felt it right to reject that measure, and it is now my duty to do what the law requires me to do, and I ask the indulgence of Members who are hostile to me, in the few words which it is my very unpleasant duty to submit to the House. I ask that indulgence because my position for some time has been one of considerable pain. By the privilege of an unsworn Member I have been within hearing of everything which has taken place in this House; but by the practice of the House I have been precluded from offering the smallest dissent to any phrase, however severe, to any insinuation however harsh, and to any charge however much I might feel it to be false. My constituents have the right to the voices and speech of two Representatives in this House. That is their right by law. They have chosen me three times in this Parliament to be one of their burgesses, and if I were as vile as some Members have chosen to describe me, if that vileness imposes no legal disqualification, no one within these walls has the right to challenge the return of my constituents. The law requires me to take my seat. It imposes a penalty upon me if I do not take my seat. It gives me privileges which I ought to enjoy while I hold unchallenged this certificate of return; and here I ask whether there ought to be any hindrance between the returned of a constituency and the duty which the law imposes upon him whose service the constituency has the right to exact? And I submit that any hindrance which is not justified by law is an act which in itself is flagrantly wrong, whoever may commit it, and that the mere fact that the majority of voices in one Chamber may prevent a citizen from appealing to the law in no sense lessens the iniquity of an illegal act, and that history will so judge it, whatever to-day you may think it your right and your duty to do. I listened, Sir, with pain to one dangerous doctrine which was put forward against my admission—namely, that Parliament recognized no rights but its own; that it had never treated those claims—that is, those of the electors of Northampton for electoral and representative concessions—as rights; that it had always regarded them as high and valuable privileges, which it was in its power to withhold or bestow, and that it had never been guided by any other principle than expediency or policy. I submit that that doctrine is treason to the Constitution of England. I submit that the suffrage is a right—that in the famous case of "Ashby v. White" it was decided by the highest Courts of Judicature in this Realm that the suffrage is not a privilege, but a right; and I submit that while it is true that Parliament has the right to take away, negate, or destroy the right of any citizen in this country, yet that one Chamber is not Parliament, and neither House by its mere Resolution may override, negate, or suspend the law, and that, although you may have the right of force, that is a had right to put against the right of law. [Interruption.] I can only thank the courtesy of the Members who interrupt me on my right for their consideration to me in the difficult position in which I am placed. I will ask the indulgence of the House while I offer one or two words of explanation as to matters which have been personally urged as reasons why I should not sit. It is said first, that I am a candidate of the Government—put forward by the Government. Surely, if that were true it would be no great objection in the way of my return. But there is not a particle of truth in it. I stood in 1868 at Northampton to fight the seat of Lord Henley. The present Prime Minister on that occasion thought it his duty to oppose my election, and he wrote a letter which I thought then a fair ground of complaint, advising the people of Northampton to return the sitting Members—Mr. Charles Gilpin and Lord Henley. I have never had, directly or indirectly, the smallest aid or assistance from either the present Prime Minister, or any Member of the Government, or, to my knowledge, from any Member of the Liberal Party, in any one of the elections I have fought in that borough. And when the hon. Member who has felt it his duty to come in unfortunate collision with me elsewhere chooses to contradict that, he contradicts it without the smallest knowledge of the facts. With reference to the allegation made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), that Mr. Adam had in some fashion recommended me to the electors of Northampton, there is not the faintest shadow of foundation for that. I never held the smallest communication, direct or indirect, of any character whatever, with Mr. Adam, or anyone on his behalf, until in this House, in his official position as Commissioner of Works, it was my duty to address questions to him on behalf of my constituents. With that exception, I never had the smallest connection, direct or indirect, with Mr. Adam or any Member of the Government, and to my belief—it may be incorrect, but to my belief—I have always regarded the Liberal Party as rather standing in the way of my election than in any fashion helping to forward my return. This allegation, however, I submit was unworthy of this House; and I submit that no such considerations have ever entered at any time in the discussion of a candidature. I submit that a great House which claims the powers of one of the highest Courts of this Realm should try to be judicial. Then it is said that all that has happened I have brought upon myself; that it is not the opinions which were alleged against me, but, to use the words of more than one right hon. and hon. Member, the offensive way in which at the Table of the House I paraded my views and threw down the gauntlet in the face of the House. Now, there is not a shadow of justification for that. The only way in which it is attempted to support the allegation is by saying that at the Table of the House, when I had in writing claimed to affirm, giving no reasons whatever in that claim, and when I was asked under what law I claimed to affirm, and I named I the Statutes, it was said that was a declaration of Atheism. But it is not true, and no person having the smallest acquaintance with the law should have made such a declaration. I think I heard one right hon. Gentleman commit himself to the statement that none except Atheists could affirm under the Evidence Amendment Acts of 1869 and 1870. That is not so. By the law prior to the passing of those Acts, any Theist who did not believe in future rewards or punishments was one of those who were not competent to give evidence on Oath, who might have been objected to as incompetent, and who became competent to affirm under those Statutes. And, therefore, I say there was no declaration of Atheism involved in what was said at the Table, and that no Member has the right to examine my opinions. I have never uttered them in this House, and, under great temptation, I have refrained from using any word which could wound the feelings of the most religious, though I have heard within these walls, within but a few hours, language used, by one who has declared his religion, against me, which I should have felt ashamed to use in any decent assembly. Nothing of my opinions, Sir, was communicated to the House until the Committee which examined me before it asked whether I had written a certain letter to The Times. It has been stated over and over again on both sides of the House that any declaration in The Times, or any declaration outside these walls, is a matter with which Parliament has no concern. I objected to answer the question on the ground that it was a matter with which Parliament had no concern. But when the Committee insisted I gave way, for I had no desire to be a hypocrite or to conceal my real convictions. I have put, I hope, as respectfully as any man can put, what I thought a fair reason for the line I took, and though I believed it was a matter which the House had no right to deal with, and entirely without its province, yet, when the Committee pressed me on it, I believed I was dealing with generous English Gentlemen, who would not distort what they had asked for into a declaration that I had paraded it before the House. I have had to sit with pain while reckless charges, probably supplied to Members by persons not having the responsibility of a seat in this House, have sounded in my ears; I have heard two right hon. and several hon. Members quote against me during this week, letters from "An Avowed Atheist," as expressing my opinions on religion and on family. These were quoted on the 1st of May against me, though on the 26th of April, in the paper in which those letters were printed, there appeared a declaration that they had not been written by an avowed Atheist at all, but by a professing Christian, for the purpose of injuring me and preventing my candidature. I ask the House whether that is a loyal and brave way to deal with a man who has no right of speech till it is too late to remedy the wrong done? Members have been industrious in reading all the things I have ever written, and some things I have never written. One, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), read in this House a phrase which, when he read it, I could not remember, and which I knew it was impossible I could have used in the way it was put, because it would have been fatal to the candidature I had desired to preserve at Northampton. And what do I find? I find, instead of its being a matter happening in any fashion since this contest began, that a portion of a speech attributed to me 15 years ago has been taken, though at the top of the very paragraph from which the hon. Member has quoted I find there is a declaration that I am not in any way responsible for what appears in the report. Surely, it would have been generous of him to say that, it would have been fair to say that, it would have been just to say that. I do not pretend that many things I have said are not deserving of blame from this House; but there is a great difference between treating things as deserving blame, and twisting and distorting a phrase to make it a groundwork for the heaviest punishment that can fall on a man who desires to serve the constituency that elected him to represent it in this House. Then I heard that I had been convicted of circulating a filthy book, and had escaped by a legal quibble the punishment I had deserved. The hon. Member who thought it right to say that in this House, might have stated that the learned Judge who tried me—and whose grave may protect him from the insinuations heaped upon other Judges who have had the misfortune to do me justice—the late Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, said—

"The defendants honestly believed that the evils which this work would remedy, arising from over-population and poverty, are so great that these checks may be resorted to as a remedy for the evils and as bettering the condition of humanity, although there might be things to be avoided if it wore possible to avoid them, and yet remedy the evils which they are to prevent. That such is the honest opinion of the defendants, we, who have read that book and heard what they have said, must do them the justice of believing."

Is that the language which one of England's greatest Judges would use of a man on trial before him for circulating a filthy book? And the jury who found me guilty said in their verdict—

"We entirely exonerate the defendants from any corrupt motive in publishing it."

Surely, when foul words of condemnation came, a generous and strong opponent would have at least said this on the other side, so that the House might be a judge how far the condemnation was warranted. I would say one more word personally. Members who have alleged that I attacked marriage, that I attacked family, cannot have read one word I have written or said on either. I have never in my life attacked either. Members who charge me with Socialism and Communism are ignorant of the whole history of my life, and of the whole political strife in which I have been engaged. But these charges, if they were as true as they are false, give you no right to stand between me and my seat. I ask the House with all respect to be logical. I do not doubt that it would be difficult for some Members to get into the frame of mind which would enable them to be so; but I ask them either to declare my seat vacant now, or at once to introduce a Bill rendering me incapable of sitting for any constituency. Deprive me of all civil rights by law, and then I must submit, as hotter men have had to submit, whom the Parliament of England has attainted and outlawed; but while I have my civil rights I will claim them. If the law cannot give them to me—and perhaps it is better that this House should be above the law—then I can only try to obtain them, and wherever my voice may go, say that you, the High Court of Parliament, greater than law, have trampled upon law. I can at least try at the hustings and the ballot-box; when the time comes—the people, whom you say are on your side—will decide, as it is their legal right to do. I heard the strange phrase from a noble Lord that both sides had gone too far to recede. The House honours me too much in putting me on one side and itself on the other. But the House being strong should be generous. The strong can recede; the generous can give. But constituencies have a right to more than generosity. They have a right to justice. The law gives me that seat; in the name of the law I ask for it. I regret that my personality overshadows the principles involved in this question. But I would ask those who have touched my right, not knowing it; who have found for me vices which I do not remember in the memory of my life—I would ask them whether all can afford to cast the first stone—or whether, condemning me justly for my unworthi- ness, they will, as just Judges, vacate their own seats, having deprived my constituents of their right here to mine?

said, the Resolution which had been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite was one that, as he thought, had been proposed and carried in that House already four times; but the right hon. Gentleman had not stated that on all those occasions there was a considerable number of Members who voted against it. On the 7th of February, 1882, the right hon. Gentleman proposed the same Resolution, which was met by the Home Secretary with the Previous Question, for which he gave the following valid reasons—namely, that—

"The House has no right to interpose and say that a person duly elected by any constituency is not entitled to come to this Table and take the Oath which the Statute prescribes he is to take. We regard a Resolution of this character—that is to say, of the character of the resolution proposed by the right hon. Gentleman—as in effect doing what a Resolution of the House of Commons ought not to do—namely, set aside the provisions of an Act of Parliament. The course we should advise the House of Commons to take is that as they permitted Mr. Bradlaugh to take the Affirmation, subject to the decision of the Courts of Law, so he should be allowed to take the Oath in the form of words prescribed by the Statute, subject to the judgment of the Courts of Law, as to whether that is a fulfilment of the condition presented by the Statute."

Such was the argument of the Home Secretary, and he (Mr. Labouchere) proposed to take a precisely similar course in this instance. For his own part, he was not aware why those who on previous occasions held that Mr. Bradlaugh was entitled to take the Oath, should not hold the same now. On the contrary, there was every reason why they should, seeing that Mr. Bradlaugh's case had been strengthened since then. He had been since reelected by his constituency, and the highest Court of the Realm had decided that Mr. Bradlaugh had a right to take the Oath. The Lord Chancellor had decided that as Mr. Bradlaugh was not allowed to affirm, therefore it was his duty to take the Oath. But there was another reason. Without going into the past, they all knew perfectly well that the reason why the House had previously objected to Mr. Bradlaugh being allowed to take the Oath was that he stated within the precincts of the House what, to all intents and purposes, amounted to this—that he was an Atheist. But the law of England held that Atheism was not a permanent quality. Though a man might have said he was an Atheist 100 times, the law held that he must be judged only by what he said when he came to perform any judicial act requiring an oath to be taken. When he came before a Court of Law, though he might have affirmed 100 times before as an Atheist, the Judge would still ask him whether he was an Atheist then, and if he said he was not, it was not competent to go back upon any previous assertions made by him, to show that he was an Atheist. According to law, therefore, the House had no official knowledge at present that Mr. Bradlaugh was an Atheist. Since Mr. Bradlaugh had been re-elected it was well known by every Member of the House that a Gentleman had been elected of great position in the literary world, and everyone who knew anything of literature was aware that he had avowed himself to be an unbeliever in a Superintending Providence as clearly as Professor Huxley himself. Why had they allowed that Gentleman, whom every one of them know to be an Atheist, to take the Oath, and yet would not allow Mr. Bradlaugh to take it, because it was asserted that three years ago he stated within the House that he was an Atheist? If the majority of the House chose to act illegally, unjustly, and unconstitutionally, they on that side would stand by justice and the Constitution. He begged to move the Previous Question, and he would take a division upon it.

Sir, I have to apologize to the House for having failed to perceive the point under discussion when I formerly rose to say a few words. Having made that apology, I pass to the Resolution itself, and here the right hon. Gentleman opposite, relying on the previous judgments of the House, has likewise relied upon previous arguments. I must say I see nothing unreasonable in that course, nor do I think it my duty to follow it. His views are unchanged with regard to the character of the Resolution that he has moved. Our views are unchanged with regard to the legal nature of the claim made by the junior Member for Northampton, and with regard, therefore, to the nature of the act by which the House has declared its judgment on the matter. I quite admit that the Government is bound to show all the respect that it can consistently with its conviction to the judgment of the majority of the House, and though I should have dissented from the Resolution and signified my dissent in the usual manner when the Question was put from the Chair, I should not have seen any particular advantage in challenging the formal judgment of the House by a division. The senior Member for Northampton is perfectly entitled to take his own course, and being, as I may say, the natural and legitimate representative of the case which his junior Colleague has in hand, he has moved the Previous Question, and announced his intention of taking a division upon it. If he perseveres in that course, I shall undoubtedly consider it my duty to go with him. I do not know that he will induce the majority of the House to alter its views; but I do not think the question is one which I ought to decline to meet in the usual and regular Parliamentary manner by my vote. I hope the House understands what the effect of carrying the Previous Question will be. To carry the Previous Question is to decline a renewal of the controversy upon the Resolution on the ground that it has been already sufficiently argued and debated. Were the Previous Question carried, it would be a declaration by the House which would have the effect of removing every obstacle from the way of the junior Member for Northampton, who would be in a position to exercise his own discretion about coming to the Table and taking the Oath. As one who dissents from the Resolution, I cannot refuse to vote for that Motion, although I should not have thought it necessary to make it, and should have been quite satisfied to record my dissent without asking the House to divide on the question.

Sir, I do not think that it would be reasonable for me to remain entirely silent after what has been said; but I am sure that it is not the wish of the House that we should renew or extend the debate upon this question. The grounds on which the House has hitherto proceeded have been grounds often travelled over, and which I see no reason for myself abandoning or expecting the House to abandon. It will be in the remembrance of the House that the opinion that Mr. Bradlaugh, after what had taken place when he was originally elected and first came to the House to take his seat, ought not to be permitted to go through the form of repeating the words of the Oath came from a Select Committee of this House. The recommendation of the Committee was accepted by the House, and another form of proceeding was suggested. When the mode of proceeding by Affirmation was found not to hold water, the question was again raised as to Mr. Bradlaugh being allowed to take the Oath or to go through the form of taking the Oath. The House then considered that they had still before them the original statement of Mr. Bradlaugh on which the opinion of the Committee was founded, and that what he had said amounted to a distinct intimation conveyed to the House that he held the Oath to be not binding, and the words to be unmeaning. These proceedings have all been, as we regard them, parts of one transaction, and I cannot suppose that the House would change its views. But we have to remember what the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out would be the effect of carrying the Previous Question on this occasion. If the hon. Gentleman comes up to the Table and proposes to take the Oath, you, Mr. Speaker, would be waiting for instructions from the House, and if no such instructions were given it would be difficult to say that any objection could be offered to his being permitted to do so. Therefore, it is necessary that the House should give instructions. It is not that by voting the Previous Question that we put the matter aside. Voting the Previous Question is, in fact, the same thing as negativing the Motion, and is clearly the same thing as saying that we ought to allow Mr. Bradlaugh to take the Oath. That being the case, I think there is no occasion to prolong the controversy, and I hope the House will lose no time in coming to a division.

said, he wished to reply to an observation made by Mr. Bradlaugh at the Bar. He should be very glad to modify or withdraw any of the statements which he had made about Mr. Bradlaugh, if he could do so con- scientiously; but he was compelled to adhere to every statement which he had made concerning him. The hon. Member stated that he had given a quotation from a speech delivered by him 15 years ago without stating that at the head of the paper in which the speech appeared it was notified that he was not responsible for what was published. In the pamphlet from which he had taken the extract there was no such notification. Had there been, he would have mentioned it. The notification, however, could have had no application to what the hon. Gentleman admitted was an extract from a speech delivered by him. The hon. Member stated also that he (Mr. Ritchie) had accused him of having been convicted of distributing filthy literature, but had omitted to repeat the remarks made by the Judge. His statement was, that in consequence of a legal quibble the hon. Member escaped punishment for having distributed obscene literature. Mr. Bradlaugh was tried and convicted by a jury, and would have been sentenced had he not raised the question that the obscenity was not recited in the indictment, and it was in consequence of that he escaped punishment. He had nothing to apologize for or to withdraw.

pointed out that if the Previous Question were carried, Mr. Bradlaugh might come into the House late at night when it was nearly empty, and unable to defend its own dignity by vindicating its right to exercise jurisdiction over his case. He would remind hon. Members of the words used in the House of Lords by the Duke of Argyll with reference to a document which Mr. Bradlaugh issued last year, and in which he appealed to the people against the House of Commons. The noble Duke said that, in his opinion, the House would be wanting in regard for its own position if it should fail to repress any such expressions of contempt for the House of Commons which exercised supreme authority over its own affairs.

Sir, I think it is very desirable that the House should quite understand what it is doing; and I, for one, desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is a fact that, in the event of the Previous Question being carried, Mr. Bradlaugh will thon be permitted to take the Oath? I can hardly suppose that the great number of hon Members opposite who, on previous occasions, have expressed the highest possible abhorrence of what they have described to be a profanation of the Oath, would avail themselves of the exceptional condition of the House to pass by what it has on several occasions determined, and what last night it determined in no insignificant way to be its will. If forcing a division at once would do that which has been deprecated on both sides of the House, I could understand the impatience of some hon. Members for a division. It is generally understood that the effect of the Previous Question being carried will be that you will permit Mr. Bradlaugh to go through the form of taking the Oath. It is, therefore, very desirable that there should be no doubt about the question before we go to a division. I only wish to say one word in reference to a statement made by Mr. Bradlaugh—to the effect that the recent judgment of the House of Lords was au affirmation by the Lord Chancellor that he was entitled to take the Oath. I need not say I do not concur in that view. There seems to be some doubt whether I am capable of expressing an impartial opinion; but I think that if some hon. Members were more acquainted with Courts of Law they would admit that it was possible for an advocate to argue points of law, and yet to speak sincerely on the question. I only wish to point out that the decision given by the Courts is simply a decision that the person who brought the action was not entitled to bring the action. No other question was raised, and, therefore, I hope that hon. Members will not be misled into the belief that Mr. Bradlaugh would take the Oath with the sanction and authority of the Lord Chancellor.

In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Launceston, I have to say that, in the event of this Resolution being set aside by the Previous Question, there would be no Resolution before the House adverse to the operation of the law by which the hon. Member for Northampton would undoubtedly be entitled to take the Oath.

said, Mr. Bradlaugh had very candidly, but not for himself very judiciously, admitted, in what he had just said, that if the Affirmation Bill had passed he would have taken his seat in a manner more agreeable to himself; but that, as a last resort, he would take the Oath which he abhorred—that was to say, he would go through the form of repeating the words of an Oath which he declared had no binding effect on his conscience. If, in the face of that renewed and present declaration, the House now permitted Mr. Bradlaugh to take the Oath, it would be passing a condemnation on the Oath itself as being a meaningless form of words.

said, that a less creditable stratagem was never adopted by any Ministry than that which was now attempted to be played off upon the House. It was quite evident that arrangements had been entered into by the Party who, on due notice, was beaten the previous night, in order to snatch an unworthy victory from a surprised and out-manœuvred Legislature. It would seem that a fore-knowledge—he would not say a guilty fore-knowledge—of what was to be attempted that day had been circulated among the defeated Party of last night; and while a large number of Members who believed that, according to the usual practice of Parliament, a vote of the House of Commons fairly arrived at would be honourably observed, were temporarily absent upon this unexpected occasion, it was clear that the battalions which followed the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian and the non-juring Member for Northampton—those two Leaders of the Liberal Party—were in full force to-night. The Premier, in his statement, had endeavoured to give the House to understand that by voting the Previous Question the House was prejudging nothing, was preventing nothing, was compromising nothing, and that hon. Members could honourably and consistently, with a due regard to the vote of the House, support the Previous Question. However, it occurred to an hon. and learned Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench (Sir Hardinge Giffard) to ask the Speaker a question; and the result had been to expose, in the clearest possible manner, the nature of the step into which the House was sought to be entrapped. The House had deliberately resolved to reject a Bill by which avowed Atheists would have the option of affirming or taking the Oath; and now, by way of respecting the solemn decision of the House, arrived at after long and careful debate, and after the most surprising and yet most deserved defeat which even they had received in the course of their manœuvres on this question, the Government were desirous of deliberately allowing this avowed Atheist to profane the Oath, and so involve the House in complicity with an abominable impiety. It was incumbent upon the consciences of all honourable men, at least, to give time for the country to express its opinion upon this attempt to force the House to permit such a profanation. He had no doubt of the opinion of the country on the subject. It was evident that the Treasury Benches were in search of new worlds to conquer; and, after having illustrated how to carry on war on the principles of peace, they were now seeking to astonish an enlightened world by advancing religion on the principles of Infidelity. On that side of the House they must decline to follow the Government in that application of their varied ingenuity. There should be limits to the exercise of the option which the Government had taken to themselves of getting off and taking on at their pleasure their Ministerial responsibilities as a Government. This plan of making everything an open question might be a convenient one for a Cabinet that appeared to have no principle but that of sticking to their places; but it was not for the House to lend its countenance to a practice at variance with all Constitutional principles, and also at variance with the honest instincts of the British people. He did not know whether they were now in the presence of that transmigration of spirit in the political existence of the Prime Minister of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke in 1866 after his rejection by the University of Oxford, when he threatened to take revenge on his political opponents; but it was to be regretted that he could not find some means of satisfying his revenge on the great historical Party with which he was once connected without compromising the fundamental principles of Christian morality and of the Constitution. He had risen simply to state that it was his intention, if he could carry it out, to secure that no snatch or snap vote should be taken on this question; and that if there was any fear of last night's decision being overthrown by a species of plot, whether concocted inside or out- side that House, he trusted means would be taken to provide for the House and the country an opportunity of considering this new attempt by means of an evasion, characteristic enough in itself, to overturn the deliberate decision of Parliament.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the money value of the outdoor relief (if any) which was actually administered in the Unions of Glenties and Dunfanaghy, respectively, during the last three months; among how many persons it was distributed; and, what proportion the persons so relieved bear to the destitute population of these Unions?

, in reply, said, the money value of the outdoor relief granted during the last three months in the Glenties Union was £145. The average weekly number of persons relieved was 186, and the total number of persons who received relief during the period was 221. It was impossible to say what proportion this number bore to the total destitute poor of the district. The Local Government Board were not aware of any outdoor relief having been granted during the period named in Dunfanaghy Union. A supply of meal was sent to Tory Island to meet any cases of emergency; but no Return had been received as to the persons relieved.

asked whether the Local Government Board would urge on the Dunfanaghy Guardians the necessity of exercising their powers in this respect?

said, that no complaints had been received yet; but the Local Government Board would be glad to consider the question.

asked whether the Chief Secretary had seen a letter from Father M'Fadden, stating that the relieving officer told him he had instructions from the Guardians to offer nothing but the workhouse?

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to the action of the Quarantine Board of British Guiana, in suddenly altering their regulations so as to enable them entirely to exclude from the Colony a cargo of rice, the staple food of the Indian immigrant population; whether such action was approved by the Secretary of State; and, whether for the guidance of shipowners and importers, he can lay upon the Table any Correspondence showing under what circumstances, and especially on what medical evidence and advice, the cargo was condemned?

Sir, the cargo of rice was brought in a vessel called the Sheila, which had conveyed Coolies from Calcutta to Surinam. In the course of the voyage a serious outbreak of cholera had taken place on board. The Quarantine Board was advised by their medical officer that the cargo was infected and dangerous. They had no power, under their existing laws, to forbid it being landed, or to keep the ship more than 14 days in quarantine; so they, in concert with the Court of Policy, passed a Regulation empowering them to impose and renew periods of quarantine indefinitely. The Secretary of State has expressed the opinion that it would have been better to have taken power to prohibit the landing of the cargo, and to have notified to the owners what they had to expect, and not left thorn in doubt whether the landing would ultimately be allowed or not. The Governor has been requested to forward the medical evidence on which the Board acted; and when this is received the Correspondence will be laid upon the Table.

I wish to announce that we propose to take the Navy Estimates on Monday and the Civil Service Estimates on Thursday, when we shall propose to break off from their consideration sufficiently early to enable my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to make the necessary introductory statement in laying on the Table of the House the Landlord and Tenant Bill. We propose, too, that the first day after the Recess shall be devoted to the Civil Service Estimates. I will make, before the Recess, such further statement as I may be able with regard to the course of Business.

Sir, I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he can now fix a day for the conclusion of the debate upon the Transvaal? The state of things appears to be this—The Motion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) is the Main Question, upon which an Amendment has been moved by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright). Several other Amendments are to be moved upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire should it become the Main Question, among which is one to be moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), which expresses dissatisfaction at the policy adopted by the Government with reference to previous events. It was understood that if the debate could be simplified and a single issue could be presented, the question might be settled in one debate; and the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government gave us to understand that he would be prepared to fix a day for the debate. I think that, with such information as I have been able to collect, both from answers given in the House and from such communications as I have boon able to hold, that there is every reason to believe that all the Amendments now upon the Paper, and the original Motion, might be withdrawn, if the right hon. Gentleman, who has given Notice of an Amendment himself, would allow that Amendment to be taken as the Main Question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire would be prepared, in that event, to move an Amendment upon the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman. Such Amendment would run somewhat as follows:—

"That the House is unable to regard the course which the Government have announced their intention to pursue with reference to the Chiefs and people of Bechuanaland as an adequate fulfilment of the obligations contracted by the Government in regard to the Native Tribes in that part of South Africa."

If the Prime Minister is able to adopt that course, a definite issue would be presented to the House, and a debate will be raised which will admit of a speedy conclusion.

Sir, the right hon. Gentleman presents this matter to me in an entirely new light. What I have understood to be the case was this. First of all, the statement is correct that I have referred to the simplification and the presentation of a single issue as the condition upon which I was prepared to say that the Government would endeavour to make some arrangement for the purpose of ending the discussion. At that time I certainly understood that the issue to be discussed was to be the issue raised by the Amendment on the Paper of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach)—namely, the case of the Convention, which formed the basis of the present state of things in the Transvaal. Now, as I understand, the question is an entirely different one. It is proposed that my Amendment should become the Main Question, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucester- shire should move another Amendment, which has not yet appeared upon the Paper, not relating to the Transvaal Convention, but to Bechuanaland. That is a new question, which I must take a little time to consider, for I am not prepared to admit at this moment that it lies within the compass of the answer I previously gave.

said, he would repeat the Question on Monday. He wished to know if it was then proposed to take the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill?

said, the Bill would not be taken until Monday.

inquired whether the Government would proceed with Lords Alcester and Wolseley Annuities Bills before Whitsuntide?

said, he could not give a positive answer; but the change which the Government had proposed—namely, that of giving a lump sum—would probably require another preliminary Committee; and he thought it would be the most convenient plan that the preliminary Committee should sit and take the Bill pro formâ, in order to insert the alteration. The debate on the Bill could then be taken on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair. If that were found to be the most convenient course the debate would probably not be taken before Whitsuntide.

said, that, as he understood there was a desire to raise an important discussion on the second reading of the above Bill, he would consult the convenience of hon. Members from Ireland as to the hour at which he would move the second reading.

^* rose to call attention to the Report of the Select Committee on Railway Rates and Fares; and to move—

"That it is expedient that the Railway Commission be made permanent and a Court of Record; and that, in general conformity with the recommendations of the Committee, the powers of the Commission be extended; and that, on application by a Railway undertaking for Parliamentary powers, a locus standi be afforded to Chambers of Commerce and Agriculture, and similar bodies, and to persons injuriously affected by the rates and fares sought or already authorised in the case of such undertaking."

The hon. Gentleman said: We were so frequently reminded, by those Members of the Select Committee of 1881 and 1882 who represented the railway interest, of the large amounts invested in the railways of this country, that I think that, at the outset of the observations which I have to make to the House, it should be stated that I am satisfied that I, and every Member of the House who has paid any attention to the question, must be well aware of the importance of that interest. We know that the amount of property in railways is close upon, if it does not exceed, the amount of the National Debt; and we know, also, that the income amounts to something between £36,000,000 and £40,000,000 sterling. I think it is impossible, therefore, to imagine that the importance of this interest can be underrated either by this House or any portion of this House. But, on the other hand, the income of this property is, in point of fact, derived from the payments of the people of this country; and if the income of the shareholders and bondholders of railways is something like £40,000,000 sterling, the contributions of the traders and passengers who frequent the railway is something between £66,000,000 and £70,000,000. The question, therefore, is one of very great importance, not only to railway shareholders and bondholders, but also to the public; and I think that, when the composition of the Committee of 1881 and 1882 is considered, it will be seen that all the interests were fairly represented on that occasion. At any rate, if there was any want of representation, it was not on the part of the railways. There were on it eight or nine Gentlemen who were either Railway Directors or who were connected with the railway interest. I do not say, as my hon. Friend reminds me, that those Gentlemen directly interested in railways were in a majority of the Members of the Committee; but they were not constant in their attendance. I think that this was very praiseworthy on their part, and only what might be expected from them. In the course of the evidence, also (we sat 64 days, and called more than 100 witnesses), there was an amount of organization on the part of hon. Gentlemen defending railways, and on the part of the witnesses whom they presented to the Committee, which was perfectly within their right, and of which right they took full and proper advantage; and it may be said with truth that the railway interest was not only fully represented on the Committee, but by their skilled witnesses who were called before us. I make these observations because I do not wish it to be thought that there was not every opportunity for them to be fully heard on the question. Therefore, that being the case, we find that the Resolutions which were adopted, and to some of which I shall call attention, met with the approval of the Committee; and I think that, when these Resolutions met with the approval of the Committee, they may be fairly asked to meet with the approval of the House. It would be tedious, and would detain the House to an unnecessary length, to go into the whole of these Resolutions; but I shall go through the principal ones, and the Motion which I shall make in concluding my observations will be founded chiefly upon these. When I say that I shall deal with all the principal ones, I must make one important exception, and that is the question of the Irish Railways. I believe that to be a most important one, and think it is desirable that it should be taken up by those more competent to do so than I can possibly be. When I state that the Irish Railways, with a capital of £36,000,000, or half that of the Great Western Railway, are ruled by 270 Directors, 37 Secretaries, 20 Managers, and a corresponding number of subordinate officers, whereas the Great Western Railway, with double the capital, has only 18 Directors, one Secretary, and one General Manager, I think it will be admitted that there is something there which requires some I looking after; and I shall be glad to find that hon. Members from Ireland, amongst their other duties, will not neglect looking after a matter of that importance. The Resolution to which I shall have to call attention may be summarized under two heads. The first is that which deals with the Railway Commissioners; and the second, that which deals with the questions coming before a Select Committee of this House. Now, with respect to the first, it consists mainly of this—"That the Commissioners shall be appointed permanently, and that they shall be made a Court of Record." I am sorry that my legal knowledge is not sufficient to enable me to define precisely what will be the effect of making them a Court of Record; but in the course of my observations I may be able to point out some disadvantages that Court now labours under, and which I am told will be removed by its being made a Court of Record. But, in addition to that, the Committee recommended, and the effect of my Resolution will be to insist, that the Railway Commissioners, being made permanent as I have described, shall thereafter have jurisdiction not only of matters coming under the general Railway Acts, but also under the special and private Acts of the Railway Companies. And it is further recommended, and I think that is also a Resolution which the House will adopt, that traders should have a locus standi before the Railway Commission. The second group of recommendations affects Railway Rates, and I think it may be summarized in this way—that it is desirable, in the first place, that the existing classification, or rather non-classification—and I think I am justified in saying it, and shall be glad to show it by-and-bye—that the classification of rates shall be revised, and in fact that it shall be made, as far as possible, conformable with the classification which the Railway Companies already observe in settling matters amongst themselves. It has been recommended that the Board of Trade should take a more active part in watching the affairs of railways—and on this also I shall have a word to say by-and-bye. Perhaps this is the matter with which I shall have the greatest difficulty in dealing, not on account of some opposition on the part of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade; and I may say at once that that opposition is not unnatural, under the circumstances of the case. These circumstances I shall also allude to in the course of my observations. Now, Sir, as to the Railway Commission being made permanent. The Railway Commission, as the House is aware, was instituted on the Report of the Committee of 1872, in place of the Court of Common Pleas, which was previously the Court for dealing with railway matters. The former was found not satisfactory. I shall not go into the reasons, but it was settled in favour of a new Court. That Court has existed now for 10 years. For five years it was established as it were on its trial, and it has since been renewed from year to year. I think, if it is to exist at all, that it ought to be a permanent Court; and my opinion that it should continue to exist rests upon the belief that it has given satisfaction to traders, and that the Railway Companies have not succeeded in bringing any charge against it, or shown any reason why it should not be continued. Now, the Railway Companies, or rather the witnesses brought by gentlemen representing the railways, did certainly attempt to show that this Court was not satisfactory to them; and one most extraordinary charge was made against the Court, and that was, that the Railway Companies, when they appeared in it, were dealt with as if they were in a Criminal Court. Sir Frederick Peel explained that that could scarcely be otherwise, because the Railway Companies could only appear in that Court on some complaint; and therefore it is natural that, being always accused, they should have some sort of feeling as if they were in the position that accused people were placed in. But, beyond this, the matters brought against the Commissioners were very far from being proved. I use no stronger term. It was said that the tendency of their decisions was such as was prejudicial to the trade of the country. It was proved that if these decisions were prejudicial to the trade of the country, they were such as had been previously given on previous cases in the Court of Common Pleas; and it was further proved that in all questions, or at any rate in the majority of cases dealing with questions of fact, where an appeal had been granted, their decisions had been confirmed, and not only so, but by far the great majority of cases which were questions of law were also confirmed by the Court of Appeal. The main exceptions wore those where their jurisdiction were concerned; and it was perfectly true that there were some cases where the Superior Courts held that their jurisdiction did not extend to these cases. But with regard to them I may say this—that it was simply that their jurisdiction did not, but ought to have extended to them. I do not think that it was shown that in any case their decision would not have been confirmed if their jurisdiction had so extended. Now, it was also said that there had been few cases brought into their Court. Well, that is very true; but it was avowed—I think, at any rate, it was not contradicted when statements were made by witnesses—that numberless cases which would have arisen in which the public had reason to complain about the Railway Companies were settled before they were brought into Court, because the Railway Companies preferred rather to settle than to come into Court. Still, with all that, many grievances remain; and it is with regard to these grievances that I shall have to speak this evening. But I should like to allude for a moment to some of the cases which were decided by the Commissioners within the last year. They appeared in the Report of the Railway Commissioners, recently circulated, for 1882. It has been laid on the Table of the House, and it is to be found in the Library. Now one of these cases was a large Company's refusal to allow the public to use their railways as a continuous line of communication with another, a smaller line which had been recently opened; in fact, the case was between the Great Western Railway and the new line from Swindon to Andovor. It appears that the reason, and the only reason, which could be alleged why the public were not to avail themselves of this communication between those two lines was because the two Companies differed as to what was to be the Act under which the arbitrator was to give the award. They did not pretend that it was not possible to accommodate the public; but it was simply a question of what was the Act of Parliament under which the arbitrators were to be appointed, and to give their award. The Railway Commissioners very soon set- tled that matter, and immediately the public had full advantage of the facilities of which they ought not to be deprived. Then there was an Irish case, to which I shall not allude; and there was a second Irish case, in which certain facilities which one Company had given to another were withdrawn. There, again, the decision of the Railway Commissioners settled the matter, and settled it in the interests of the public. I mention these cases because they are cases in which it is peculiarly desirable that the Court should have the advantage of an expert. These are cases in which, if, instead of an expert judge, we had had expert witnesses, and if there was any discrepancy in the evidence, the question is, whether the matter would have been settled in the best way? Then there is another case where two Railway Companies refused to carry traffic by a certain route. Between those two Railway Companies another small Railway Company was, to use an expression which has become classical of late, sandwiched; and when the small Railway Company applied for a through rate, they were told, in the first place, that they were not entitled to ask the through rate because they were not a terminal Company; and, secondly, because there was an arrangement between the two great Companies which prevented their granting the rate. Now, one of the powers of the Commission is to control the traffic agreements between railways. That, again, is one of those matters in which it is peculiarly desirable that the Court should be continued in its powers. And there are various cases—one especially, the Corporation of Huddersfield, opposed against two Companies, I think the Great Northern and the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railways. In the case above referred to, the arrangement made by the Railway Commissioners has been of the greatest public advantage. Now, I do not think it is necessary for me to pursue this matter further in order to prove that it is desirable that this Railway Commission should continue to exist. I may here refer incidentally to some evidence given by Mr. Balfour Browne. I do not know whether I should call it given on behalf of the Railway Companies. It related to the question why Railway Companies did not avail themselves of the power of using the Railway Com- mission as arbitrators; and this is what Mr. Balfour Browne said. He said that Railway Companies object to go before the Railway Commission as arbitrators between the Companies, because the Commissioners can use their knowledge acquired as arbitrators on every case that goes before them. Subsequently, in cases of complaint of undue preference, I think that that really was a most valuable piece of evidence, which slipped out quite unawares. I say that the number of cases decided is no criterion of the value of the Court; and I do not think that it is necessary for me to labour this question any further, because, if the Railway Companies did show a little animus against the Commission, it must disappear when they see that there is no chance of their getting rid of it. And I think I need also scarcely ask my right hon. Friend whether or not it is his intention to make it permanent. I think that I may take it for granted that, so far as my Resolution follows that recommendation, he will be with me. Well, now, as regards the extension of the powers of the Railway Commissioners to the Private Acts of the Railway Companies, and having all the usual powers of a Court of Record. My hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex is, I see, in his place, and he probably will be able to explain what will be the effect of making the Railway Commissioners a Court of Record. But I would just say this—that, if I understand the matter aright, the Railway Commission may now decide that a Railway Company is giving an undue preference, and that this undue preference should not be given. But, in the meantime, in this Court the successful plaintiff receives no damages. I believe that it is not in the power of the Railway Commissioners to award any damages to the plaintiff in such a case as the law now stands. I am told that there is a case of undue preference proved in 1880, where the plaintiffs are now litigating in the ordinary Courts, in order to get damages for the undue preference which was proved in the Court of the Commission. That has now gone on for three years outside the Railway Commissioners' Court, after they have given their decision, and when it will be determined nobody knows. But, under the special Acts of the Railway Companies, the Commissioners have no power whatever; and this is, perhaps, the most important point with regard to the Railway Commissioners which we have to consider. They may give an award in case of undue preference; but in case of overcharge, no matter how flagrant, they have no power. With regard to passengers, a railway passenger may be overcharged to any extent by a Railway Company, and the Railway Commissioners have no power to say you have charged this man too much; but they have power to say—"You deprive him of undue facilities;" and it is only in this roundabout way that the Railway Commissioners have jurisdiction with reference to that matter. Now, I think that if there be any case for the necessity of a Railway Court, it is as necessary as to the special Acts as to the general Acts, and I confess it is extraordinary how this was overlooked when the Court was established. Now, as to the charge against the Railway Companies. I believe that the Railway Companies, on the whole, do their duty to the public—that they do their duty according to their lights; and that, in general, they are well advised in their dealings with the public. But if, in the majority of cases, the Railway Companies could be shown to act in the public interest, there are also numerous cases in which the public are sufferers at the hands of the Railway Companies. I do not say that traders are not unreasonable, It is natural that they should be, because they look only to their individual interest; but Railway Companies also look properly to their own interests, but they do not look always far enough as to what is their permanent interest, and, in order to secure temporary revenue from traffic, permit injustice to be done. Now, this is the case especially with regard to preferential charges; and I believe that those who have complained most of the preferential charges are the agricultural community. It was in the evidence before us that Railway Companies, who cannot generally be accused of unfair dealing, have certainly arranged their rates for traffic in agricultural produce in such a way as to bear very hardly indeed upon the British as compared with the Continental producer. According to Mr. Rowlandson's evidence before the Committee, with reference to the rates for cattle from Newcastle to inland towns—and I believe also to one of the seaports—it was stated—and his evidence, I think, was not controverted—that cattle imported from abroad were conveyed from Newcastle to inland markets at rates considerably less than those charged for the same termini for English traffic. His evidence went to show that from Newcastle to Manchester foreign cattle in small waggons are charged £2 4s. 3d., home cattle £3 7s.; in medium waggons, foreign cattle, £2 9s. 9d.,home £3 13s. 6d. From Newcastle to Leeds foreign cattle are charged £1 11s., home cattle £2 8s. 6d., in small waggons; and in medium waggons foreign cattle are charged £1 16s., and home cattle £2 4s. 9d. From Newcastle to Wakefield foreign cattle are charged £1 11s., and home cattle £2 10s. 6d., in small waggons; and in a medium waggon foreign cattle £1 16s., and home cattle £2 17s. 3d. Now the same thing occurs with regard to cattle imported as against British cattle, and also as to dead meat, between Glasgow and London. Foreign cattle are charged £1 19s. 6d. per truck less than the Scotch cattle to London. With regard to dead meat there is a difference of 25s. per ton—foreign dead meat is charged 45s. per ton, whereas the Scotch dead meat is charged 70s. per ton. If I am not mistaken, that applies not only to foreign dead meat when it is imported, but actually to the meat of foreign cattle when they are slaughtered in Glasgow. ["No, no!"] I am not quite certain of that. At any rate, I do not think it is necessary to press that point, because the principle is involved as much in the one case as in the other. I now understand the hon. Gentleman says that it is the case that foreign meat is charged 45s.; I mean that the dead meat slaughtered on the wharves in Glasgow is charged 45s., whereas the dead meat taken, not from the wharves but from stations not a great many yards from the wharves—a mile and a-half or two miles—is charged 77s. Well now, there is the case of hops. No doubt, hon. Members opposite will have something to say on the subject of hops. Evidence has been given, and it was not contradicted, that German hops from Flushing viâ Queenborough, that is to say, a distance of 155 miles, including 50 miles by rail, are charged 25s. per ton. But if those hops, or similar hops, are put into a truck at Sitting bourne, which is on the same line, but three or four miles nearer to London than Queen-borough, the same line over which the hops from Flushing have to pass, then that, instead of the charge of 25s. per ton for those 47 miles out of 50 on the same line, is charged 36s. as against 25s. on the whole distance. Then we were told that if Bradford goods are sent to London and exported from London, that they are charged at a considerably lower rate than if sent into London to the wholesale warehouses. This is a peculiarly hard case, because we know that the competition between Bradford and the Continental manufacturers happens, in this instance, to be rather in the home trade than in the foreign. Those soft foreign goods, which have recently been used so largely and have become so fashionable, meet the Bradford goods in the home market—in the London market—and, in spite of that fact, the Railway Companies charge higher rates upon goods to be delivered in the City of London than they do if taken to the wharves in the City of London. Well, similar complaints were made with respect to wire to and from Belgium. It was shown that if you sent wire to a port in Belgium it was charged more than from Belgium, first by ship and then by rail to this country. And the same complaint was made about glass; another complaint was made with regard to coal. It was one which was urged by Mr. Muspratt. He stated that the coal was raised from a pit and taken past the manufacturer's door to a shipping port at a lower rate than he is charged for the shorter distance. And there was a number of similar cases. Some defence was, of course, made that it was the desire to encourage the import trade, and it was attempted to be proved that no one was hurt by this, but that some people were benefited by it; and the plea generally—and I am sorry to say that it was supported by one witness from the Board of Trade, Mr. Farrer—was this, that if the Railway Companies wore compelled to charge the same rate in all cases, they would not level down, but level up. I think that that is very easily met, because the Railway Companies already charge as high a rate as the people can pay. That is their guiding principle—they charge as much as the traffic will bear; but if the traffic will not bear more they cannot increase their rates—that is, they cannot level up. But this thing has been attempted. When the Denaby Main Colliery Company got a decision against the Sheffield and Lincoln Railway, there was an attempt to level up; instead of lowering the rate, they raised the Denaby Company and raised the rate to other parties. What was the effect of that? The traffic was enormously diminished in three months, and they had to level down again after having tried levelling up; and the same with other cases, I believe. But my answer, apart from what may be expected as to whether the Companies will level down or level up, is that the railways are the public highways of the country, and it is not to be tolerated that the Railway Companies should be able to arrange the rates in such a way as to favour one trade, or one country, or one district against another. So long as this is in their power, without any check, railway managers may be capable and may be honest, but they may be incapable or corrupt. I do not accuse any man; but I do say that that state of things which permits men, who may be incapable, to influence, for good or evil, the trade of the country by arbitrary acts, is not a state of things which can be tolerated, and that some remedy must be provided. But it may be said, with regard to the case of undue preference, that there are already sufficient powers—why do not traders go before the Railway Commissioners? I think Mr. Farrer put that well. He said that the London Tavern is open to everyone, but that it is a very expensive place to go into. But it is not only a question of expense. And moreover, with regard to that, it is hardly to be expected that individuals will fight cases by which all their neighbours will profit. But it is not only a question of expense. Individual members of the public are afraid to encounter Railway Companies; and this was specially emphasized by Mr. Balfour Browne. He said that the Railway Companies have opportunities of making traders suffer, which prevent them from coming into the Railway Commissioners' Court. I can give instances, but I will not do so. But I see my Friend the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. Howard). He had a little encounter with the Midland and North-Western Companies, the proceed- ings of which may be instructive if he should think fit to bring them before the House this evening. Now I should have been glad if the Board of Trade had been disposed to take up this question in the public interest; but we are told that it is difficult to decide what are public and what are private interests, and we are told also that the Board of Trade are not always able to do as they would like, and that the Treasury sometimes puts a veto upon proceedings which might otherwise be taken; and on this subject Mr. Farrer gave some very valuable evidence, which, however, I do not think it necessary to for me to quote. But I believe that, even as regards this, we may hope that a change will come over the spirit of the Board of Trade. They have already assumed the responsibility of calling the attention of the Railway Companies to cases where Railway Companies ask for rates which are unusual. I think that that is a step in advance, and I should not be surprised if my right hon. Friend, although he may not express his concurrence with me in what I think ought to be done this evening, I should not be surprised if, with a little gentle pressure, the new Minister of Agriculture may be inclined to take cases before the Railway Commissioners which are really of public interest. But this I do recommend, and this I am prepared to support, and it is that associations like Chambers of Agriculture and Chambers of Commerce should have a locus standi before the Railway Commissioners in the interests of the traders who are members of their associations. I have presented some 20 Petitions in favour of that course from Chambers of Commerce and Agriculture, and some other Petitions have been presented by other hon. Members. There is one recommendation which the Committee made, and about which there was considerable contest, and that was the recommendation that there should be an appeal on questions of fact from the Railway Commission to another tribunal. Now that really means dragging traders from one Court to another, and we have had instances of how far that has been carried by Railway Companies which should make us hesitate before giving that power. At any rate, if they are to have that power, I think that the Railway Commission should be entitled to say that, in any circumstance, the costs should be borne by the Railway Companies. There may be questions of great public interest which have to be decided. If the decision has been come to on a question of fact against a Company, and they elect to appeal on account of the case being a typical one, I think that the Railway Company should pay the costs of the further litigation. But this is, after all, a minor point. There is another way in which the Railway Companies punish the public, and that is the claim to charge for terminals. I believe that terminals have been exacted in cases where they were not entitled to charge for terminals at all. That is a very complicated question; but, at any rate, they have in some cases so strained the claim for those terminals as to more than double the rate which they were actually authorized to charge. They make such an unauthorized charge as 15s. 6d. up to 36s. or 37s., and they account for the remainder of the charge as terminals. Now that question of terminals wants looking into. I am not prepared to say how it is to be settled; but it is a question well worth the attention of the President of the Board of Trade. But then there is another question, and that is the last with which it is for me to deal with in reference to these recommendations, and that is how Railway Companies are enabled to make such great variations on different parts of their lines, and how it is that Liverpool was able to come before the Committee and say we are placed at a great disadvantage by the differential rate which is charged us as compared with Barrow and Fleetwood. Well, the reason is this, that the only protection that the traders have in these cases is by the maximum rates, and these maximum rates are really in point of fact obsolete. They wore established at a time when people did not know what the cost of conveyance would be, and what the traffic would be able to bear, and the rates which were first established in 1840 or 1844 have been continued by a sort of tradition in subsequent Railway Acts. It also has arisen in a natural way. The contests before the Railway Committees have only been between Railway Companies; but whenever it has been said, "The preamble is proved," the opponents have withdrawn. They have never ob- jected to the tolls or rates being unfair. It was not to the interest of any opposing Company that the railway applying for powers should have the tolls lowered; on the contrary, the higher the tolls the better their old opponents, when they had squared, were satisfied. I think that there should be a revision of the tolls and rates, and there should be a revision, in the first place, of the classification. I wish to show how complicated this is. I would, in the first place, mention that the London and North-Western Railway Company had no less than 105 Acts—for I took the trouble of going over them—authorizing tolls and rates of various kinds, and it is so with the other Company. Now as to the classification. In the Great Eastern Act of 1862, the following articles are charged in the same class—hay, straw, tea, and silk. In one of the Great Western Acts—I am sorry I have not got the date—grain, dung, and sheet iron are in the same class. In other cases—as the Midland Railway—to show how obsolete these railway rates are, manufacturers are charged in the manufacturing district 3d. to 5d. per ton per mile; and so for cotton also, on the North. Western I believe, the maximum charge is 2½d. to 3d. per mile. When these Acts were passed neither Parliament nor the customers knew what the rates should be. In many cases they were taken from the old Canal Company's tolls, and they have been stereotyped in the Acts, and they are really of no use now but to enable the Railway Companies to manipulate the rates in any way they please, to the detriment, it may be, of the public. Then, that being so, I think that whenever a railway undertaking applies for powers, the traders affected should have a locus standi, and that they should have an opportunity of complaining of the existing rates. I say nothing about new Companies, because their rates, as a matter of course, are subject to this control now, but in the case of old Railway Companies asking for new powers; and if the Railway Companies will take this matter of the revision of the rates into their ownhands, and not wait till the public make them, it would be better for them. There is just one other point—although I am not prepared to go into it except to say that this question of the claim of the public to make representations to the Commit- tee with regard to the rates should not be lost sight of—and that is with regard to the much higher rates charged on many articles carried by the English railways than by the railways abroad. I think I can find one or two cases which will establish that point. In France coal is charged under 4/10d.; in Belgium, 3/10d.; in Germany, ¼d. per ton. Sheet iron is charged ⅔d., and hardware ⅘d. In England the maximum rates are very much higher, and not only the maximum rates, but the rates actually charged. Another thing is that the railways—I do not say on the pretext, but in consequence of the rise of coal—increased their rates very considerably after 1870; but in most cases they have taken care not to lower them again. I will give you a very curious example, and at the same time of the curious mode with which they deal with rates generally. In the case of Dockyards, evidence was given before us that the traffic rates from Staffordshire to the Dockyards increased 50 per cent some years ago, and that whilst the rates to other places about the same distance were lowered, that these rates never had been lowered. Since this was before the Committee some modification has taken place; but up to that time it was simply this—that private traders have done what they could to get a reduction and the Dockyard had not paid any attention to the matter, and the consequence was that those rates were not reduced, and they were 50 per cent, on the average, higher than for similar distances to the trading ports. Well, Sir, I think it is not necessary that I should go any further into the evidence. I believe that no one in this House desires to do anything that should shako the confidence of railway shareholders in the good faith of Parliament; but I do feel sure that it is necessary, for the sake of the maintenance of our position as traders in this country in competition with other countries, that those matters should be strictly looked into. For that purpose it is necessary that the utmost facilities should be provided for redress in cases in which the Railway Companies have been justly complained of, and it is necessary that the classification, and in many cases that the rates, should be revised. That is the scope beyond which I shall not go—that is the scope of the Resolution which I shall submit to the House, I bag to move—

"That it is expedient that the Railway Commission be made permanent and a Court of Record; and that, in general conformity with the recommendations of the Committee, the powers of the Commission he extended; and that, on application by a Railway undertaking for Parliamentary powers, a locus standi be afforded to Chambers of Commerce and Agriculture, and similar bodies, and to persons injuriously affected by the rates and fares sought or already authorised in the case of such undertaking."

If the House should think fit to adopt this Resolution, as I hope it will do, it will be necessary to give effect by a Standing Order to that portion which relates to the locus standi of traders and others before Railway Committees. With respect to that matter, I shall be only to glad to communicate with the Chairman of the Committee on locus standi, and also with the President of the Board of Trade as to the best way of giving effect to this Resolution.

, in seconding the Motion, said, the public were indebted to the hon. Member for Banbury for having called the attention of the House to this question, which was undoubtedly one of great importance. To the agricultural interest of the country it was at least as important as the questions of Local Taxation and of County Government, for it was obvious that by equitable rates of charge and proper facilities for traffic, that great interest must be deeply affected. The Committee of 1881 took a mass of evidence as to the constitution of the tribunal, and as to the subjects to be submitted to it, and there was no doubt there were many defects in its constitution. The judgment of the Commissioners could only be enforced by an action brought in another Court, they themselves being absolutely powerless to enforce it. The Commissioners wore also subject to the prohibition of the Courts of higher jurisdiction, and it had been the constant practice of the Railway Companies to move for a writ of prohibition so as to remove cases into the ordinary Courts of Law. Again, the Act of 1873 only gave power to Local Boards and Municipal Authorities to appear before the Commissioners on anything like a general question. It was true that individuals might make complaint, but matters of public interest could only be promoted by Railway Companies inter se or by some Municipal Authority. He was of opinion that the Commissioners had discharged their functions with great ability; they had had something like 100 cases before them, and they had decided them, on the whole, in a very satisfactory manner.

, resuming, said, he contended, therefore, that the Commissioners should be constituted a permanent Body with extended powers. The question of railway rates was a very serious one for the agricultural interest. Hops, for instance, had to pay 36s. per ton for carriage between London and Ashford, but they were brought from Boulogne for 21s. That was a very considerable extra charge; but when the difference between the distances was considered, English hops would be found to pay nearly double the amount paid by foreign hops. So again with cheese. American cheese came from Liverpool to London for 25s., while English cheese paid 45s. from Chester to London. Railway Companies justified these charges partly by the competition they had to contend with by sea, and partly in terminal charges. They charged for the money expended on stations and sidings on the assumption that they wore special works to which the rates imposed by Parliament did not apply. But the Railway Companies were not authorized to levy terminal charges at all, except a reasonable sum for loading and unloading, and for services incidental to the trade of the carrier, and he contended that the construction of stations and sidings was part of the railway itself, and that the maximum rates authorized by the Special Acts were intended to cover these, whilst the Railway Companies made a heavy addition to their terminal charges on account of the money laid out on these works. It was clear that the charges to which he had referred were prejudicial to the commercial interests of the country, and that there ought to be some fixed tribunal to regulate these matters. It was very difficult for an individual to go before the Commissioners and contend against a Railway Company; it might seriously prejudice him in his business, and to meet this, it was proposed by the Resolution of his hon. Friend that the Chambers of Commerce and Agriculture, and similar associa- tions, should have that power, and that proposal, as well as the other proposals of his hon. Friend, he cordially supported.

said, that the hon. Members for Banbury and East Sussex had urged so many conclusive reasons in favour of the Motion that it was unnecessary for him to go fully into the question. As, however, his hon. Friend the Member for Banbury had referred to him, he would explain that the firm of which he was a member had, some four or five years ago, a claim for terminals against the Midland and London and North-Western Companies, and that, after much fruitless negotiation, upon the firm giving notice of their intention to proceed before the Railway Commissioners to have the question settled, the Companies retorted by raising the rates payable by the firm most enormously, a course which, when the case was before the Commissioners, Mr. Pope, Q.C., the counsel for the Midland Company, denounced most emphatically. In his opinion, the Commission should not only be continued, but its powers should, in the interests of the trade, the commerce, and the agriculture of the country, be greatly enlarged. Experience had proved the necessity of the measures shadowed forth in the Motion of his hon. Friend, which he had much pleasure in supporting.

said, he felt satisfied that his hon. Friend was perfectly justified in bringing this matter before the House, and at the same time that he did not intend to bring a general indictment against the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom; for when he considered the mode in which the enormous business of their undertakings was conducted, as compared with the manner in which similar undertakings in foreign countries were conducted, he was strongly of opinion that those Companies deserved well of the country, and he did not think that it would be desirable, in the interests of the community generally, to render uncertain the investment in these undertakings. His hon. Friend had spoken of the large amount of capital risked in these undertakings; but he had not stated that the return even now was, on the average, only a fraction over 4 per cent. He did not think a less return would justify investment in this kind of property. His hon. Friend was, of course, aware that the nature of the tribunal before which Companies should go had been the subject of consideration by the present Government and its Predecessors for a number of years, and that the settlement of the question had only been delayed by the presence of other Business. He thought he might now say that the question was now within a measureable distance of solution; and if he should have the honour of holding his present Office next Session, he might see his way to introduce a measure dealing with it. Looking at the Resolution of which his hon. Friend had given Notice, he might say he saw nothing in it to which he could take exception; and, therefore, speaking on behalf of the Government, he would offer no opposition to its acceptance by the House. His hon. Friend proposed that the Railway Commission should be made permanent. To that proposition he gave his unqualified adherence. The Commission had done its duty uncommonly well, and its work was thoroughly appreciated by the public. The only questions which he would reserve were questions of detail—as to the salaries to Railway Commissioners, and the exact character of future appointments. What he pledged himself to was a permanent Court, with such powers and conditions as would make it a Court of Record. The next point in the Resolution was that, in general conformity with the recommendations of the Committee, the powers of the Com- missioners should be extended. He was glad the hon. Member had used the words "in general comformity," because he did not wish at that stage to pledge himself to the details of a Bill which might be introduced hereafter; but, speaking generally, he could fairly accept the recommendation of the Railway Committee with regard to the proposed extension of powers. The question most open to doubt was as to a power to order through rates on the application of traders. That was a matter in regard to which there would be considerable difficulty; but still lie was not altogether without hope that it might be arranged in practical accordance with the suggestions of the Railway Committee. The cases to which the hon. Member referred had been cases in which traders generally and individuals were injured by existing railway rates, and chiefly cases arising out of the inequality of rates which undoubtedly existed. But inequality of rates did not necessarily involve anything in the shape of undue preference. To take the case of the agricultural interest, cattle and agricultural produce brought from abroad, and especially the United States, were conveyed over English lines for lower rates than were charged for exactly the same produce when carried entirely within the United Kingdom. It was urged, however, on behalf of the Railway Companies, that if they were not to make these special rates the goods would be conveyed exclusively by sea. It was also urged that in the case of foreign produce it frequently happened that the quantities conveyed were very much larger than in the case of homo produce, and was, therefore, entitled to special rates. He did not offer any opinion on the validity of this defence; but it was evident that the matter was one for separate and full investigation, because, though there was an unequal rate, they must not necessarily assume that there was an undue preference. He agreed, at the same time, that the question as to whether an undue preference had been given was a proper subject for inquiry by the Railway Commission. By whom, then, were these matters to be brought before the Commission? He agreed that as a rule it was not a duty that ought to be thrown upon private individuals. The expense would be such that a private individual could hardly be expected to undertake it; and, under those circumstances, it did appear fair that representative bodies which were authorized to speak to some extent in the name and on behalf of commerce should have, ex officio as it were, a locus standi before the Railway Commission. If that wore the case, he had no doubt that many questions would be taken up and decided which were not at present raised at all. But his hon. Friend went a little further in his speech, and expressed the hope that the time would come when he (Mr. Chamberlain) would be persuaded that it was expedient for the Board of Trade or some Public Department to take up these questions on behalf of the public. He confessed he did not think that time was likely to come soon. His experience showed that wherever the duty was thrown upon a Public Department of undertaking prosecutions, the action of the Department tended to wear the appearance not so much of prosecution as of persecution. Speaking especially of his connection with shipping legislation, where this duty had been thrown upon him, not in the interest of property, but of life, he was bound to say he did not think the result had been so satisfactory as to justify any large extension of the practice. His hon. Friend proposed that individuals affected by alleged unequal and unfair rates should also have a locus standi; but, of course, he would not wish that whenever a Railway Company applied for powers, even when they were in the nature of an extension for the public benefit, that every private individual should have the right to harass them by going into every single rate or fare. Therefore, it might be necessary to protect Railway Companies against frivolous complaints by a restriction similar to those in the case of criminal prosecutions where the fiat of the Attorney General was required. In conclusion, in regard to the Amendment on the Paper by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson), he would say generally that the terminal charges constituted a question of importance. He believed that the maximum charges now established were in many cases altogether unsuited to the existing requirements of the traders. They were extremely arbitrary, and the classification undoubtedly required revision. He did not think it necessary to say more on this occasion; but he hoped in a subsequent Session to be able to give effect to the pledges he had given in regard to the subject brought before the House on the Motion of his hon. Friend.

said, that, considering the course of the debate and what had been said by the President of the Board of Trade, he did not think it would be necessary or desirable that he should move the Amendment which stood in his name in favour of one uniform classification of goods and the recognition of terminal charges subject to their publication by Railway Companies. He entirely accepted the view of the right hon. Gentleman as to the immense importance of the question of terminal charges. He had occasion to consider the question practically, having been personally interested in the due apportionment of these charges. But, like the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard), he had been a litigant before the Railway Commission, and, as a result of the litigation, had succeeded, to a great extent, in inducing the Companies to allot him proper terminals. He was, therefore, now affected by them in the same way that his constituents were. He concurred in the suggestion that the Commission should be made permanent, and that it should be a Court of Record. But it was an expensive Court, a fact that was due to the necessity of calling skilled witnesses, who were required on account of the uncertainty of the law. The mere reconstitution of the Court would do little to reduce the grievance of undue cost. With reference to the question of an unlimited right of appeal, or what might more strictly be called a right of rehearing, he thought it ought to be pointed out that this was a provision made entirely in the interest of the Railway Companies. The suitors in the Railway Commissioners Court were, on the whole, very well satisfied with the decisions of that Body, and when appeals had been allowed it had generally been at the instance of the Railway Companies. By the Act of 1873 the right of appeal was limited on account of the great abuse which had been made by some Railway Companies of that right. It was, therefore, desirable that the right of appeal should continue to be in some way limited. The difficulty of dealing with rates, on account of their number, of which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken, would be diminished, if, instead of considering all, attention were fixed on the maximum charges, as to which it would be useful to introduce something like certainty and simplicity. The question had been partly dealt with by the Standing Order moved by the hon. Member for North Hants, which affected new Companies, and old Companies seeking to increase their rates. Under the Standing Order the Board of Trade was called upon to report on the question of rates, before a Bill was read a second time. In a similar manner Companies seeking fresh powers might be called upon to simplify their rates. The practicability of this was illustrated by a Return made some years ago to the House of Lords, in which the charges of some Companies oocupied several pages, and those of others only as many lines. Preston was peculiarly affected, because it was at the junction of two great systems, and inconvenience and loss resulted from uncertainty as to the railway charges. If he found he were supported by the feeling of the House, he should move a Standing Order requiring the Board of Trade, in the case of existing Companies seeking further powers, to make a similar Report to that which they were now required to make with respect to new Companies, stating whether their existing rates required simplification. A great deal of ambiguity seemed to prevail as to terminal charges, which sometimes were taken to mean the charges a Company was entitled to make over and above the maximum rates and fares, but had a totally different signification under the Clearing House system. It was his belief that the public would never be fairly dealt with under the Clearing House system until the arrangements which the Companies found it convenient to make among themselves were made binding as between them and the public. It might be worth while considering whether, when the Railway Commission was reconstituted, there should not be a Department of an administrative kind established, to which some of the functions of the Railway Clearing House with reference to classification should be attached. The Railway Clearing House was a voluntary association, to begin with; but it had since obtained Parliamentary powers. The result had been the formation of a great monopoly, which it was not conducive to the public interest to leave without public control. He thought, also, there ought to be some inexpensive method of bringing before the Railway Commissioners questions which could be easily settled by reference to the Company's books, and for that purpose an office something like that of the Chief Clerk in the Court of Chancery might be established. He agreed with a former speaker that this question of the relations between the public and the Railway Companies was of as vast importance as any of the great questions before the House this year. At the same time, after what had boon said, he did not think it necessary to press his Amendment, although it was his intention this Session to move the Standing Order of which he had given Notice.

I think, Sir, after the very satisfactory and fair way in which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) has received this Motion, that there need be little more said now on this subject. This is a very important question, though it has been brought forward in a thin House. At the same time, I am quite sure that there is no question which has excited the attention of the country generally more than this. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Samuelson) stated that the Committee on Railway Rates examined something like 100 witnesses. There might have been three or four times that number, if it had been necessary to call them. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman, in his speech, made reference to competition, and he said that that was sometimes brought about by the Railway Companies very fairly, and that it benefited the consumer. Well, that, generally, may be so. At the same time, I think that the hon. Member for Banbury is quite correct when he sets forth the view that it is wrong to give to any body of men the power to induce competition between traders, without some public control. There is just one case to which I would call attention, in order to show how unfairly that power is sometimes exercised. It is a case which is stated in the Report of the Railway Committee, and that is the carriage of sugar from Greenock to something like 39 towns, at a distance of 292 miles, and the same charge is made for carriage as from London, at a distance of 150 miles—in other words, the Railway Companies are carrying sugar for the Greenock refiners at something like one-half of the cost per ton per mile that they are carrying for the London refiners. We have it on the highest authority—and the trading public generally accept this view—that the power to construct a railway is actually a contract between the Railway Companies and the public, and that, although it is carried out by the machinery of an Act of Parliament, it is yet understood that the powers granted, and by which alone they can become business Companies for their own profit, are to be exercised fairly and for the public good—that is, that they will give no undue preference, and that they will give equal advantages to all traders similarly circumstanced. Now, it is impossible to say how far these Greenock refiners have an advantage in the labour market and in other items which affect the cost of refining sugar; and, if they have an advantage over the London refiners, it is clearly wrong to disturb the trade of the latter by bringing the Greenock people into competition with them by carrying their sugar 292 miles at the same rate as they carry the London sugar 150 miles. Well, there is, again, the case of meat from Glasgow to London. The same Railway Companies charge, as was said by the hon. Member for Banbury, 77s. per ton for home-grown meat from Glasgow to London, and only 45s. per ton for meat which is brought from America, landed at Glasgow, and carried to London under precisely the same conditions as to quantity and other circumstances. Well, Sir, that seems to be a violation of the spirit of the law, at any rate, which, prohibits the giving of undue preference. Now, unless the Railway Companies can show that the producers in each case are similary circumstanced when equal rates are given for unequal distances, or dissimilar when unequal rates are given for equal distances, it is clearly a wrong inflicted upon the traders, either individually or in classes, to disturb their trade by bringing this competition upon them. The contract, as it were, between the public and the Railway Companies is, at present, in a most unsatisfactory state. We had it before the Committee that the Railway Companies considered themselves entitled to charge anything that was belew their maximum rate. They also said that they had a right to carry for different consignors at different rates, although the article was the same and under similar circumstances. Well, that seems to be a wrong—it seems to be inviting competition and to disturb trade; and although it may, in a sense, benefit the consumer, yet it cannot be a permanent public benefit, for it disturbs trade arrangements made by private traders, and causes uncertainty to every class of producers. I think, therefore, that the Railway Companies, before they ought to be entitled to make those great differences in charges, should be required to show before the Court the circumstances which justify such departure from the spirit of the law, and that they are inflicting no injustice upon any class of traders. The whole question is in a very unsatisfactory state; and it would be much more satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman had been able to have promised some Bill this Session upon the subject, for it is a long time to wait for another Session, and we cannot tell what may take place before then. But this is a question which is most urgent. Trade continues in a had state throughout the country, and we know that the condition of agriculture could not possibly be worse; and yet we have this, what many believe to be a cause of great injustice, continued at least for another Session. Now, with regard to those terminals to which the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) has alluded. This is one thing which affects adversely the whole question. So far as the trader is concerned, it is perfectly impossible for him to ascertain his position with regard to terminals, or even to rates. If he goes to the railway station to ask what any particular rates are, he finds that he is confused with alleged terminal charges. Again, classification ought to be dealt with, because it is impossible to derive from any one rate book what the trader wants to get at. He is referred not only to a rate book, but also to a classification book, and this classification is exceedingly imperfect. Therefore, it is to be hoped that, when the Government takes this up, they will not leave too much power in the hands of the Railway Companies, because, although, generally, they may fairly be said to work honestly, yet they are not a class of people different from the generality of mankind—they are liable to the same passions and the same feelings; and we have abundant proof that they often allow feelings rather than deliberate judgment to dictate their actions, as in the case of the disputed coal rates between two Railway Companies in 1871 and 1872. This was a case of coal rates between the Midland Counties and London; and we know that this dispute between the Midland Company and the Great Northern in 1871–2 raged for a considerable time, and the rates were reduced 2s. per ton less than what they are at the present time. Well, supposing that the Railway Companies were induced to compete against the sea carriage, or against each other, for this foreign trade, and that they lowered that rate proportionately, what position would the English farmer be in? They are had enough now by being charged 77s. against 45s. to the foreigner; but the Railway Companies might, to secure foreign traffic, with as much justice, still further reduce the rates on these articles 3s. or 5s. per ton, as was done with the se coal rates in that battle between the Midland and the Great Northern. It is, therefore, clearly the duty of the Government to take this question up as early as possible, and to place it beyond the power of any Railway Company to injure any class of traders upon the plea that competition is cheapening the article and benefiting the consumer. Consumers are producers; and when any class of producers is injured, the wages of the workmen are, by consequence, reduced, the whole condition of things is thrown into confusion, and it cannot be regarded as a permanent good to anyone. I thank the House for the patient manner in which they have listened to my observations.

was glad that the Resolution had received the approbation of the Government, the ugh he failed to understand that portion of the speech of the President of the Board of Trade which declared that differential rates were justified by the superiority of English over foreign railways. The President of the Board of Trade also said that, the ugh the differential rates on foreign corn might be unjust, still they did not injure the English farmers, inas- much as the foreign corn would get to London, whether carried by rail or sea. Well, that might be so; but, on behalf of the agricultural interest, he was ready to take the chance, and he only desired that both should be healed alike, and that justice should be done. He would now come to the main question. Some years ago he sat on a Railway Committee, dealing with railways South of London, and it appeared in evidence before it that a Railway Company, who said they were then desirous of giving increased facilities to the inhabitants of Kent of visiting Maidstone, were charging 3½d. per mile for local passengers for short distances to that town, and 2½d. a mile for through passengers for long distances. He suggested at that time that a rate should be uniform throughout the whole extent of the railway, but was told such a provision was beyond the scope of the Committee. Had these Resolutions been in force, he would have been able to enforce that system on the Company. He trusted that before long they would see their way to prevent further injustice being done by Railway Companies to British producers whether agricultural or manufacturing.

said, as the Representative of an agricultural constituency, he wished to express his satisfaction at the manner in which the President of the Board of Trade had received the Resolution of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. B. Samuelson). He only trusted that the right hon. Gentleman's definition of a measurable distance within which the solution of this question was to be reached was a right one, the ugh, considering the state of Public Business at present, he feared agriculturists would have to wait some time yet before their interests were considered in connection with railway rates. The recommendation of the Railway Commission to inquire into the existing rates and fares was one which was virtually essential to the agricultural community. With regard to differential rates, it would be far more equitable and fair that the foreign producer should be charged more than that the home producer should. He was glad that the Government had accepted the Motion, more particularly the latter portion of it. He thought it extremely desirable that in each case which came before the Commission an inquiry should be made, and that they should decide whether the charges were excessive or not. The President of the Board of Trade appeared to have overlooked one very important recommendation of the Royal Commission relating to the uniform classification of goods over the whole railway system. If that recommendation were adopted, he thought it would help very materially in carrying out the other objects to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred.

was glad that Her Majesty's Government had consented to deal with this subject, although legislation for the purpose of making the Railway Commission permanent had been promised before and had come to nothing. The Railway Commission had given great satisfaction to the commercial community; and, therefore, he considered it was highly desirable that it should be made permanent and a Court of Record. With regard to the recommendation of the Committee that Select Committees should have some authority to deal with the existing rates and fares of Companies coming to Parliament for further powers, he thought it was open to the criticism of the President of the Board of Trade, that it would be quite sufficient to give Chambers of Commerce and Agriculture a locus standi before the Railway Commission on all questions affecting rates and fares, he the roughly agreed with the recommendation that there ought to be one uniform classification of goods all over the country. With respect to differential rates, he could not see the justice of charging lower rates to the foreign than the home producers and manufacturers. Foreign corn, cattle, timber, and many other commodities from abroad were thus carried cheaper than home-produced articles. For instance, foreign hops from Boulogne were now brought from Folkestone to London for 17s. 6d. per ton, while hops from Ashford to London, half the distance, were charged double that amount—35s. per ton. Railway Companies justified these anomalies by saying that they were for the advantage of the consumer. In his opinion, the se differential rates should be abolished.

, continuing, observed that great anomalies also prevailed in passenger rates. He thought it most desirable to adopt the recommendation of the Committee that the Commissioners should have power to decide questions of passenger fares, and this power might be conferred upon them by the measure that was to be introduced by the Board of Trade. He would also suggest that the passenger fares should be printed on the railway tickets. This was done all over the Continent, and was found to be a great check against fraud. Evidence that this could be done without difficulty, beyond the necessary expense at the outset, had been given by railway managers before the Committee. He was glad the House was prepared to accept the Resolution.

pointed out that the manufacturers of Sheffield had great reason to complain of the unfair rates charged by the Railway Companies, and practically the foreign manufacturer gained advantages in the matter of carriage at the expense of the English manufacturer. The manufacturers of Sheffield had to complain of the differential rates charged on certain railways, by which iron ore and pig iron were conveyed from Cumberland to Goole and Hull for shipment to Germany at a cheaper rate than they could get it at Sheffield from the same mining district. He did not think it for the benefit of the community that railway shareholders alone should be considered, or that the preferential rates should he maintained to the detriment of the home manufacturer.

thought that no difference should be made in the rates for artifical and ordinary manures. Home agricultural produce paid much higher rates than foreign; and now it was attempted further to handicap the British farmer by doubling the rates for his manures.

said, he congratulated the hon. Member for Ban-bury on the success of his Motion, and assured the President of the Board of Trade that this was a great and a growing question. Owing to the depression and suffering in late years, farmers and traders generally had looked very closely into the matter, and they found that the Railway Companies were acting in an anomalous and arbitrary manner in the fixing of their rates. Every one of the railway managers who gave evidence before the Committee on Rates and Fares stated that the Companies did not know what was the cost of any particular service, or when they were charging too much or too little, and that the system—or rather no system—which guided them was that they should take all they could get, so long as they kept within their maximum rates. There was no other business in the country carried on upon such a principle. The farmers did not ask the Railway Companies to carry for them at a loss; but they complained that they wore charged 3d. per mile for service for which other traders were charged only Id. The Railway Companies had endeavoured by low rates to divert the trade from its natural channel; but this was for them an unfortunate policy, because it led to the crowding of their lines, and to heavy outlay for additional stations and rails. In some cases the difference between their charges for home and foreign produce was equal to 10s. an acre additional rent to the farmer in this country. He could have wished that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade could have gone a step further and brought in a Bill to carry out the views of the Committee, so far as they wore embodied in the Resolution now before the House. The only point he wished to refer to was that with reference to granting an appeal to the Companies upon questions of fact as well as of law. If that were done, it would have the effect of abolishing the Railway Commission altogether; and therefore he hoped, before any new Bill was introduced, this matter would be carefully considered. He should be glad if the Board of Trade would go further, and take up the question of enforcing the law, and seeing that the Companies did not exceed the powers conferred upon them. The public should not be charged in excess of the rates which the Companies were authorized to charge. The necessity for some body taking cognizance of the charges made by Railway Companies was become more and more clamant. He hoped the Railway Commission would be made permanent, with extended powers to enable them to deal with all questions arising under their Private Acts.

remarked, that this was a very complicated question as well as a very important one. What the farmers and traders objected to was seeing a protective or preferential rate put on the foreign producer—not only corn, cattle, fruit, and vegetables, but timber and iron. He recommended the right hon. Gentleman to consider it well before next year, with a view to the introduction of a Bill which would be satisfactory to all parties.

said, the debate had proceeded pretty much on the assumption that railway managers were entirely ignorant of their business, and the hon. Members who had taken part in it had spoken as if they alone knew how to conduct railway business. He did not rise to oppose the Resolution, because he was perfectly satisfied that when this question came before the House in the shape of a Bill, railway Representatives in the House would be quite able to prove that they had managed the railway business of the country in a manner which would meet with the approval of the House. But he rose to correct certain misstatements that had been made with respect to the Railway Commission, and with respect to what were called preferential rates, which misstatements, if they went forth uncontradicted, would lead to great misapprehension. Hon. Members had shown, or tried to show, that preferential rates were the rule, and equal rates the exception. As the Railway Commission had complete power to correct the preferential rates, and they had not done so, how could it be said that it was desirable that the Railway Commission should be made permanent? He believed the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Motion inadvertently said that the Railway Companies entered the Commissioners' Court with an animus against the Commissioners. [Mr. B. SAMUELSON: I did not say that.] He was glad to hear the denial from the hon. Member, because he begged to assure the House that the only animus that the Companies had against the Commissioners was the fact that there was not a light of appeal. He would now say a few words as to the so-called preferential rates. Take the rates for beef from New York as compared with Glasgow. As a matter of fact, Glasgow was not a place where beef was grown, but for the sake of argument it did not matter. It was true that the rate for home-grown dead meat from Glasgow to London was very much higher than for foreign meat; but how did that affect adversely the farmer who grew beef in the neighbourhood of Glasgow or anywhere else? It was not competition with the homegrown meat in any sense whatever, because if foreign meat was not sent to Glasgow, to be afterwards conveyed to other ports, it would be sent direct from New York to the various ports. By whichever route the meat went the rates would be exactly the same. Sugar was another article, and it was said, as one of the iniquities of railway management, that sugar was carried from Greenock to towns in England at a lower rate per mile than it was carried from Liverpool to the same town. That simply meant that if the sugar was not taken by railway from Greenock to those inland towns, the sugar from Greenock would not go at all, or if it went, it would go by sea to Liverpool, and thence by railway to the Midland Counties. The fact was, that the railway rates for sugar from Greenock to the Midland towns was identical with the rate by sea to Liverpool and thence by railway to its destination. And who was injured by that? Certainly it was not the refiner in Greenock; it was not the consumer in the Midland town; it was not the refiner in Liverpool, for there was the same competition by sea. The fact was that no one was injured. Another hon. Member referred to timber, and said that foreign timber was carried at a lower rate than homegrown timber. But the articles were not the same. The foreign timber was cut and stowed easily, whilst the home-grown timber was as it fell, and therefore was carried at a very great cost. That was the reason for the difference of charge between home-grown and foreign timber. Another hon. Member spoke of manure, and said that artificial manure was charged a higher rate than the common manures. Now, the artificial manure that the hon. Member wanted to be carried at the same rate, and at the risk of the Companies, was an article worth nearly 200 times as much per ton, and required great care in the carriage in order to keep it dry and in good order. Under such circumstances, was it strange that Committee after Committee upstairs had authorized Railway Companies to charge higher rates for artificial manure than for street sweepings and common manure? He merely rose, however, for the purpose of correcting the misstatements which had been made that evening, and to express his belief that the Railway Companies would not object to a Bill founded upon the Report of the Railway Rates Committee of 1881–2, and that they would not object in any sense to the Railway Commission being made permanent, provided they had the right of appeal.

thought that his hon. Friend had failed to recognize the ground of complaint. The reasons assigned might explain, but could not justify, the charges complained of. The farmers round Glasgow, and the people whom they supplied, did not see why the Railway Company should be allowed to charge them more for the conveyance of articles of home produce than for goods of the same description coming from New York or other foreign ports. With regard to manures, the object was to secure that all kinds of manure should be conveyed into the country at the same rate of charge.

said, the Commission had ably and impartially discharged their duties, and hoped that powers would be given them to enforce their orders. The necessity of having this power was brought home strongly to his mind by the action of the Midland Great Western Company of Ireland towards a small Company, the Dublin and Meath, of whose line they were lessees. The Midland Company had consistently pursued a policy of starving the leased line, with the object of being able to purchase it at a reduced price. An order was recently made by the Railway Commissioners, directing the Midland Company to accelerate the trains upon the; leased line by 20 minutes, and the way in which they obeyed the order was by slowing them for the same time. He cordially supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Banbury.

asked why the Government had departed from the practice carried out every Friday since the House met this Session—namely, to move at once that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply? If this new practice were continued, it would he in the power of the Government to burke every Motion on the Paper, and the rights of private Members would be reduced to a perfect farce. The present occasion was a strong case in point, because before dinner that evening the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave hon. Members expressly to understand that the Government would endeavour to get some Votes in Supply, and several Members had in consequence come down to take part in the discussions upon those Votes. It was against all understanding on which it was possible to carry on the Business of the House that certain arrangements should be made, and that late in the evening the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury should rise and upset them without Notice. It was, he repeated, perfectly understood that the Government would endeavour to get Votes in Supply up to a certain hour that night, and it was too bad that that understanding should be upset, because, probably, some little thing had occurred which was not satisfactory to the Government. He therefore moved, as an Amendment, that the House at once resolve itself into Committee of Supply.

seconded the Motion, on the ground that the House ought to have had some intimation of what the Government really meant to do, and because he was exceedingly anxious to get the opinion of the House on the way Business was done with regard to Bills brought down from the House of Lords.

said, he declined to endorse the doctrine that the Government were bound to renew the Motion to go into Committee of Supply. It was not supported by authority, and no precedents had been adduced. On the present occasion there was a strong reason why the Government, so far as they could control the time of the House, should now proceed with other Business. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland desired to proceed with the Motion for introducing the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Bill, the debate on which had been adjourned after the important division that morning. This was a matter of great importance at present, and it was the absolute duty of the Government to take the earliest opportunity of laying it before the House. The engagement the Government entered into had been strictly kept. It was that the Government would endeavour to obtain Supply if they could do so before 11 o'clock, which hour had passed. The time was named with the object of consulting the convenience of hon. Members from Ireland who were specially interested in the Bill. He hoped the noble Lord would see the reasonableness of conforming to the understanding which had been come to so distinctly, even to the naming of the hour.

thought he could cite authority in support of the doctrine repudiated by the Prime Minister. This question of the obligation of the Government to repeat the Motion for Supply was one he had raised on former occasions. In 1861, under the Leadership of Lord Palmerston, arrangements wore made which were favourable to the Government, and which abrogated the rights of private Members. Up to that time, Thursday night was a private Members' night, and they had the right to raise any question on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. Lord Palmerston took Thursday nights for the Government, and provided by Standing Order for the adjournment from Friday to Monday, so that no discussion could take place on the Motion to Adjourn; but, as a compensation, he gave private Members fuller rights on Supply. It was distinctly held out to private Members that Government should be bound to renew the Motion of Supply. It was obvious that if the Government assented to an Amendment, and did not renew the Motion for Supply, as they abstained from doing both now and last week, private Members were deprived of the opportunity of bringing on Motions. He voted against the change then proposed, but the Opposition were defeated. Some years afterwards, when Mr. Denison was Speaker, the Prime Minister endeavoured to encroach on the rights of private Members, and the Speaker distinctly decided that it was the custom of the Government on Friday to repeat Motions of Supply. It was very singular that the debate on this point did not appear in Hansard, although it was in The Times. He did not wish to use un-Parliamentary words; but he must say that the sharp practice of the Government in bringing in Bills from the House of Lords without Notice, and putting them on the Paper without any power of discussion, was very unusual. He should be slow to impute sinister motives to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, but there could be no doubt that he had a strong idea of limiting the rights of independent Members. If this were permitted, the rights of private Members would be at an end, and all that would remain for them to do would be to register the dictates which proceeded from the Ministerial Bench.

said, that the Prime Minister displayed a most remarkable anxiety to take the Police Bill at a very early hour that night, in order to give an opportunity for its full discussion, although they were quite ready to rush it through at a late hour on the previous night, when no person could discuss it. Of course, it would not be right for him to say that the Prime Minister wished to suppress a discussion on jury-packing in Ireland, a Motion in reference to which stood in his name; but as the right hon. Gentleman was not generally supposed to be a statesman without guile, persons would be inclined to regard his Motion in that light. Only this week the Government, interfering with private Members' nights, made a seizure for a purpose, the true value of which was duly appreciated on a recent occasion. They now came down and at tempted to appropriate Friday. They must take this present proposal of the Government in connection with the other proposal to take Tuesday night. To night, however, was a private Members' night, and the course taken by the Government in refusing to set up Supply again would be regarded both within and outside of Ireland as a device to prevent the discussion of an important branch of maladministration there. Talking of Government maladministration in Ireland might be very inconvenient to the Ministry at the present time; but there was no doubt whatever that in Ireland the policy of Her Majesty's Government—

The hon. Member must confine himself to the subject before the House.

I was using the argument that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Ireland—

The hon. Member must confine himself to the subject before the House.

said, it was quite evident that the Premier, with the evident concurrence of his Chief Secretary, was most anxious to press forward this Police Bill now, at a time when the Irish Members would have had an opportunity of bringing forward some important grievances, of which Notice had been given. Of course, if the discussion was now suppressed, they should take another opportunity to bring those grievances under the Notice of the House. In his opinion, the time had come for private Members to form combinations to defeat the continual conspiracies which, if not hatched on the Treasury Bench, were certainly hatched in its immediate vicinity.

said, he must protest against this additional manœuvre on the part of the Government. The Government, which had itself passed Rules for the better transaction of Business, was obliged to resort to a trickiness which was unworthy of it.

I rise to Order. The hon. Gentleman says that the Government are obliged to resort to trickery. I ask, Sir, if that language is in Order?

, on the point of Order, asked whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire had not the other day charged the Government with having resorted to a despicable trick, and not been ruled out of Order?

I am sorry to hear the expression of the hon. Member, but I cannot say that he is out of Order.

thought that the Government wore rather thrown off their balance by recent events. In Sir Erskine May's work it would be found laid down that Fridays were reserved for private Members. Now they proposed to postpone Supply, on which the discussions of private Members usually took place, until Monday, when, under the Now Rules, no subject not connected with the Navy Estimates, which wore then to be brought on, could be discussed.

said, it was most unreasonable that Supply should be put off when there was an opportunity of discussing it. The effect of this would be that after Whitsuntide a Minister would come down and ask for Votes on Account.

said, the House ought to consider the situation without regard to the special Motion or measure which was affected. If the Government wished, to introduce an important Bill, they had sufficient facilities, by means of a Morning or Evening Sitting or a Saturday Sitting, of doing so without interfering with the rights of private Members or infringing the Standing Orders. It was a dangerous principle to set up that it was desirable to do evil that good might come, and the Hon so were bound to protect the safeguards which secured to private Members their few remaining rights and privileges. He could conceive no occasion which would justify the Government in setting at nought the Standing Orders of the House. The House were willing to assist the Government in pressing forward any measure of public importance; but the Government ought to avail itself of facilities they already possessed without infringing on the Standing Orders.

declined to follow the right, hon. Gentleman into a discussion as to the boundless amount of time at the disposal of the Government. That time consisted of Monday, Thursday, and as much of Friday as they could get. Moreover, although the Government had the power to settle the order in which the Business should be taken on their own night, they had no control over the amount of time which the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends might occupy in discussing that Business. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken as if the Government were doing something in. transgression of the Standing Order; but, surely, he could not have read it, as, in point of fact, it said nothing about the necessity of renewing the Order for Supply after it had been superseded by an Amendment. Again, Sir Erskine May's work, to which reference had been made, went against the contention raised on the other side, inasmuch as it stated that it was the exception, and not the rule, to set up Supply again on the same night. As to the particular case, he would point out how much foundation there was for the assertion that the Government were attempting to deal unfairly with the House. If it had not been for the special exertion of the Government no House would have been kept that evening at all. The Government had been simply endeavouring to carry out the undertaking given by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland last night to bring forward, at a reasonable hour that evening, the discussion on his Motion for leave to introduce an important measure relating to Ireland.

thought it very unfortunate that this question had come up in so unexpected a manner in a very thin House. The action of the Government really amounted to a second attack in the course of the week on the rights of private Members. The usual practice was perfectly well understood. The Government put down Supply on Friday as the first Order of the Day, and up to any reasonable hour of the night private Members wore allowed to discuss Amendments on the Motion for going into Committee. If the Government, by the mere fact of accepting the first Amendment, had the right to burke private Members' Motions, he should like to know what the privilege of private Members was worth? It would be convenient if some Member of the Government not only gave them a general view of this question, but also cited the precedents on which that view was founded. He un- derstood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it had been the habitual practice of the House. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] Then he repeated his challenge to the Government.

said, hon. Members opposite came down to the House, and from time to time expressed their anxiety to preserve the rights of private Members. He (Mr. Causton) was a private Member, and he was anxious his rights should be preserved; but he was bound to say that, in his opinion, the way to preserve his rights was not to abuse them. Night after night, and week after week, the rights of private Members were abused by those who professed a desire to preserve them. He wished to ask any Member of the House whether the rights of private Members had not been abused that night by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) and the right hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), and also by hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway opposite? The hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. A. J. Balfour) came down to the House, and, without having heard at all what was going on, charged Her Majesty's Ministers with great neglect, and with abusing the rights of private Members. He (Mr. Causton) trusted that the time of the House would not be wasted by such unsatisfactory discussions as now proceeded night after night; and that, if they did continue, the Prime Minister would, at the earliest possible moment, take away some of the nights which at present belonged to private Members, and devote the time to the benefit of the public: service.

said, Her Majesty's Government must be very much encouraged by the speech of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Causton), because it evidently marshalled them in the way they were going. They were interfering that night with the habitual rights—he did not say the rights as defined by the Order when it was read, but with the habitual rights of private Members on Friday nights; and they were doing it at a time when they had, by their own action, provoked an examination of their conduct. On Tuesday evening, by an arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the majority, the rights of private Members were taken away. The Government were complaining that they were unable to make progress with Public Business. They had themselves deliberately wasted four nights in discussing a Bill which they knew had no chance whatever of being placed in the Statute Book; and now they came down on a Friday, and, early in the evening, when there were two matters of considerable importance down for discussion, suggested that the House should pass to the discussion of a Government Bill. The Bill might be a good one, and of considerable importance; if so, let it be brought on in Government time. It was clear that, if the present Motion were adopted, Friday would go the way Tuesday had already gone. The Government had more than half the House amongst its followers, and it only required that in the ballot one or other of their supporters should get first place, in order that a Friday should be useless so far as private Members were concerned. It was not a question respecting the relative importance of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill and the Motion on the Paper with regard to jury-packing in Ireland; it was not a question affecting that night only, but one affecting every Friday night. He hoped a division would be taken, in order that some distinct and definite protest would be made by the House against the action of the Government.

said, he thought it would occur to the Speaker that they were now entering upon one of those technical discussions upon the Rules of the House which generally ended in making the Rule more doubtful than before, without any satisfaction resulting to either side of the House. Looking at the matter from a practical point of view, he had come to the conclusion that, so far as Business was concerned, there was very little chance of any good purpose being served by the present Sitting being prolonged. Holding such a view, and considering the late nights they had all kept of late, he thought it would be well for them to seek rest, and stop this useless discussion upon old and new Rules, which, he freely admitted, he never did understand, and never could. With that object, he would move the Adjournment of the House.

said, he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion, There were many reasons why the House should now adjourn. A chief reason was that last night the Government were in a small minority; and it was only fair and proper that the Prime Minister should have ample opportunity of consulting his Colleagues, between now and Monday, as to whether the House should be asked by them to transact any other important Business. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland might introduce his Bill to-night; and, for all they knew, on Monday they might find that he and they had simply wasted their time.

The Question before the House is the Adjournment of the House. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to that Question.

said, he wished to afford Ministers an opportunity of consulting, between now and Monday, as to whether or not they would ask the House to support any other measures which they had introduced, or which they intended to introduce during their tenure of Office, which they must now expect to be very short.

said, he supported the Motion for Adjournment; and he was extremely glad that the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) had, by the Motion he had made, afforded the Opposition an opportunity of putting its foot down at once against the tyrannical proceedings of the present Government. It was a long time since they had had an opportunity of endeavouring to resist the manner in which the Government arranged the Business of the House, and for that reason he was inclined to support the Adjournment. He supported the Adjournment, too, because the Prime Minister had proposed to the House a course which was unprecedented, for which the right hon. Gentleman had not cited a single precedent. The Prime Minister was content to give his own ipse dixit to the House, and to say—"You must take that at my bidding." He (Lord Randolph Churchill) supported the Adjournment, because the House of Commons was not accustomed to be treated in such a way until the advent of the present Parliament. The Prime Minister must learn, and the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) must learn, that the House of Commons might be led, but that it was not to be driven. ["Question!"] That was the Question, and that was the reason he was giving to the House for supporting the Adjournment. He supported the Adjournment for another reason; and that was, that it was extremely questionable whether hon. Members on his side of the House were not thoroughly justified in resorting to all the Forms of the House in order to prevent Her Majesty's Government proceeding with Business after having been placed twice in a most discreditable and disgraceful minority. He supported the Adjournment, because it had been proved that, for the last three months, on no question of public importance could the Government command the confidence of the House of Commons.

said, he wished to give his reasons why he should vote against the Motion for Adjournment. He should oppose the Motion, in order that they, on his side of the House, might enter their protest against the unholy alliance which had been formed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. There were three Parties to that unholy alliance, and the present Motion for Adjournment was one of the consequences of that alliance. He should take the liberty of reverting to a few facts that had taken place within the last week. On Monday last—