moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time upon that day six months. He opposed the Bill because, in addition to the injury it inflicted upon the localities which it affected, it was a most objectionable measure in the public interest. It was perfectly unnecessary to speak of the value of the River Thames. The River Thames at the present moment was not only of the greatest benefit to the inhabitants on its banks, but it was used by the people of London as a playground and a health resort. The Bill took fresh powers to acquire land in the parish of Dorney, near to Surley Hall, above Windsor, for the purposes of their undertaking, but it had a much wider scope than it purported to have. The real object of the Bill was to enable the Company to move the whole of its works from Hampton, where they were now placed, higher up the River; invading an entirely new district, while the old district would not be used at all. The promoters of the Bill knew very well that no more water would be allowed to be taken out of the River Thames. They knew that a provision of that kind would never be sanctioned by the House of Commons for one moment, and therefore, in order to blind the House, they inserted in the Bill words to provide that no more water should be taken out of the Thames than was now taken. But what they did was to take power to intercept the water before it reached the Thames. He failed to see the difference of taking the water out of the Thames and intercepting it before it reached that River. So far as the water in the River was concerned, the Conservators were able to test the quantity taken out. If it were intercepted before it reached the River there would be no check whatever upon them, and they could practically take any quantity they pleased without limit. If the sources were tapped from which the Thames was fed, and all the springs taken away, the River would be diminished by a quantity which it was impossible to estimate. The River itself would not be diminished by a known quantity, but by intercepting the sources it would be diminished by an unknown quantity which it was impossible to estimate. It was believed that the effect of the proposed works of the Company would be to reduce the water in the Thames in the summer months, which at the present moment was very low, by one- sixth of its present flow. The inhabitants living along the banks of the River altogether objected to the Bill. Another objection to the measure was that it contained no safeguard or protection at all as to the quantity of water that would be taken. There was no provision whatever by which to check the amount that might be taken, and nothing could prevent the Company from taking more than they might be authorized to take. He trusted that the House would forgive him for moving the rejection of the Bill in this manner, but it was a measure which would seriously injure his own constituents. He had the honour of representing a constituency which lived along the banks of the Thames for 16 miles— all the way from Staines to Teddington Lock. They were of opinion that their existence depended on the manner in which the House treated this measure; many of them obtained their livelihood from the River; if not directly, at all events indirectly, from those who came down to fish and enjoy the boating. If this Bill were passed their occupation would be gone, and, therefore, their interests would be seriously affected. They felt that if a large quantity of water was taken from the River the effect of the diminution of the volume of water would very much diminish the speed of the flow, the consequence being that the River would silt up in a manner very detrimental to the traffic. In the course of last summer the River silted up in a serious manner just below the point where the Grand Junction Company propose to take the water, and if any further quantity of water was taken away the traffic upon the River at that part might be virtually destroyed. The next point was that in the summer time the water would not be bank high, and great quantities of mud would be exposed to the daily action of the sun, causing a large amount of effluvia to arise, which would be most injurious to the health of the inhabitants on the banks. If the Bill passed it would materially affect the River at Richmond and Twickenham. It was almost possible now during the summer to walk across the River at certain points, but if this Bill passed it would be left almost dry. He thought the House would be exceedingly jealous before they consented to do anything further that might be calculated to injure the River. Windsor and Eton were anxious about their water supply. They had lately purchased their works, and feared the supply might be tapped; but at any rate, if this Bill passed, and it did diminish the water in the River, they knew they would be unable to work the machinery by which they supplied themselves with water. There was another matter of great importance. If these works were constructed it was feared that the foundations of Windsor Chapel would be affected, and the safety of the Castle itself imperilled. A Report had been made to the Dean and Chapter some time ago that the lack of water was already undermining the foundations of the Chapel. If the water was contracted still further the probable result would be a subsidence of the soil. It was feared that if this Bill passed the whole of the water beneath the Castle mound might be drawn off. Another point was this—in the dry summer of last year there were visible marks in Winsdor Forest that, the water being taken away from the trees, they showed great signs of decay in consequence. If any quantity of water were permanently taken away the trees in Windsor Forest would be seriously injured. Then, again, the market gardeners were afraid that their land would no longer be fit for the purposes for which it was now utilized, seeing that they were entirely dependent for their supply of water on the water proposed to be drained off by this Company. In addition, the roads in the locality would be rendered useless to those who lived there. He would only point out what occurred at Hampton. At the present moment the roads had been so much taken up by the Water Companies that the Local Authorities had had to buy land in order to put in sewers. The tramway which was about to be formed in the neighbourhood had been stopped, and the inhabitants could not obtain the communication which they ought to have, because the Water Company were interfering with them. As far as London was concerned there was another very serious point. If the water of the Upper Thames were impounded great injury would be done to the scouring power of the River, and the ebb and flow of sewage would constantly be going on between London and Woolwich. The sewage, instead of being carried off by the return water, would be allowed to go backwards and forwards with, the tide. He wished to know why the Conservators of the River Thames had not taken distinct action in the matter? Parliament had placed in their hands the preservation of the River Thames. At the present moment there were a large number of Water Companies, which supplied the Metropolis with water, and he wished to know if the Conservators were likely to receive a larger sum from the Grand Junction Company if they consented to this proposal, and did not treat it in the way it deserved. He thought it was extremely hard that the Conservators should bring criminal prosecutions against persons who polluted the water, and yet were willing to part with the water bodily for a profit, although the inhabitants of London got no benefit from the expenditure. There should be no question that the water supply of the Metropolis ought to belong to the Metropolis, and that would come to pass before very long. The way in which the Water Companies at the present moment treated the public certainly failed to meet with universal approbation. They cut off the water from the poor, and the way in which they raised the rates and made the people pay for the concessions which were given to them did not commend them to public approbation. He wished to know how long was that House prepared to give to these Water Companies privileges for which, the public must hereafter pay? There could be no doubt that Lord Cross's Bill would have been a good measure for the people of London. If that Bill had been carried the Metropolis would have been much better off in regard to its water supply than, it was at present. He feared that they would never get the same terms again. Since then the Water Companies had spent no less than £1,600,000 on works, all of which would have to be paid for. Until there was one grand plan for the entire supply of the Metropolis, all money expended in this way would be money thrown away. How long was Parliament going to allow these Companies to spend money over which they would have no control. The Company did not propose to raise further capital, which made the scheme all the more objectionable, as if they used their unexhausted powers the capital be used would not be liable to the restrictions Companies applying for new powers had to submit to. Personally, he should resist the proposals contained in the Bill in every way. He objected to the second reading, because he did not think that the money of the ratepayers should be spent in order to oppose the Bill in Committee. He understood that the Government intended to support the Bill. At the present moment the Company could increase their works without injuring the taxpayers or the people of London. When the House gave further powers to the Southwark and Vauxhall Company, they accompanied their powers with a sinking fund to pay off the capital authorized to be raised within a certain term. Therefore, in every shape the measure was most objectionable. The last Report of the Local Government Board spoke of the increasing purity of the River. He believed that at the present moment the water supply of London was more pure than that supplied either to Birmingham or Glasgow. No doubt the water had been rendered year by year more pure through the exercise of the provisions which Parliament had imposed upon the Water Companies. He hoped the House would throw out this Bill on the second reading, and not put the parties who were opposing it to the enormous expense which an investigation upstairs would entail. He begged to move the rejection of the Bill.

said, he rose for the purpose of seconding the rejection of the Bill. It seemed to him that the measure would not only do an injury to the community, but that it was framed in such a way that it was a positive insult to the House. It assumed that the Members of that House were perfect fools; it assumed that they did not know that a river was fed by its tributaries. He supposed the Company thought that the House of Commons imagined that the whole of the Thames water came down in the shape of rain from the sky. He would read one of the clauses of the Bill in order to show what he meant—namely, the 10th clause, which said—

"The Company may from time to time by means of the works by this Act authorized, take, collect, and divert into their now existing reservoirs and works, and the works by this Act authorized, and therein impound and thence distribute the waters of the River Thames and its tributaries, and of any of the other streams and waters shown on the deposited Plans or on or near the site of the works, by this Act authorized, or on any land, for the time being, belonging to the Company: Provided that nothing herein contained shall authorize the Company to take from the River Thames a larger quantity of water than they are authorized to take under the powers of the Acts hereinbefore recited."

That meant that the Company should not take in water they had not power to take at the present moment when they claimed to take any water they liked from the tributaries of the Thames. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) who opposed the Bill, had spoken in the interests of the inhabitants above Teddington Lock. He (Mr. Labouchere) spoke on behalf of those below Teddington Lock. At the present moment so much water was taken from the River that its volume was diminished by about one-third. The consequence was that the mud was carried up by the tide and deposited, the tide not being strong enough to sweep it away. Any hon. Member could see that for himself by looking at the opposite side of the River from the House of Commons. Under these circumstances, he did not think that they should give power to any Company whatever to take water from the tributaries of the Thames. He understood that Mr. Joseph Lucas had made a survey of the water-bearing strata of the Thames Valley. That matter was a large one, and ought to be treated by the House; but it ought not to be taken piecemeal. No Company should be allowed to go to that House and ask for powers which were calculated to injure a river which was of so much importance to Londoners. He had great pleasure in seconding the Amendment.

said, that no doubt a formidable coalition had manifested itself against the Bill, and he was interested in that coalition, because on previous occasions he had taken part in it, and he had found himself in alliance with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Dixon-Hartland). On this occasion, however, he would ask the House not to be guided by those hon. Members. The hon. Member for Uxbridge, who moved the rejection of the Bill, drew a gloomy picture of what would happen if the Bill were passed. He had made statements of an alarming character. In the first place, he said that the Thames would run dry; that the mud would be uncovered and exposed in consequence of the Thames running dry, which would produce a pestilential effluvia that would be dangerous to health, and might lead to loss of life; that Windsor Castle would subside and possibly tumble into the River; that all the trees in Windsor Forest would decay and die; that every road in the neighbouring locality would become impassable, and cease to be of any use whatever to public traffic. No doubt these were statements of an alarming character; but they were statements which he thought the House would agree could not be taken on the mere assertion of the hon. Member for Uxbridge.

said, he was quite sure that the noble Lord did not wish to misrepresent him. He had not made those statements, but he had said that they were brought forward by those who were opposed to the Bill as statements of its probable result.

said, that might be so; but, at any rate, the hon. Member had endeavoured to influence the House by repeating the statements. It was obvious that they were statements which required careful examination. They were allegations which could not be allowed to rest upon any ex parte statement of facts. If the hon. Member was correct in the forecast he had made as to the result of the Bill, no Committee of the House of Commons would hesitate for one moment in rejecting the measure. But the question was, were they correct? The statements which had been made as to the effect of the Bill upon Windsor Castle and the Thames, and all the other effects he had stated to the House, were not questions which the House could, on a second reading stage, examine for themselves. He thought it would be an unprecedented thing if any bonâ fide project for carrying out a great public improvement, such as an addition to the water supply of London, were thrown out on the second reading. He thought he was right in saying that there was no precedent whatever. What was the question that ought to be decided by the Bill? It was essentially a scientific one, on which the evidence of scientific men must be heard. What was the question? It was this—Whether the River Thames and all the amenities of the River Thames would vanish if this Water Bill were passed? He would ask the House with great confidence whether that was a question they could decide in a debate on the second reading? It was a question upon which evidence must be called and thoroughly sifted by a Committee upstairs. What would be the position of the House if it took upon itself on an ex parte statement a project such as this, which might be productive of the greatest possible advantage to a very large number of people? In the speeches of the hon. Member for Northampton and the hon. Member for Uxbridge not one word was said about a most important part of the community—the 500,000 of the population of London who had no recognized representation in that House and no local self-government of their own, and who, if the House did not protect them with the greatest possible care, might suffer great injury if the Bill were rejected. The present Company averred that they were not at the present moment in a position to supply 500,000 of the population of the Metropolis with water unless they got these powers. That was their statement, and the hon. Member for Northampton would hardly deny that any Gas or Water Company, or any other Company, had privileges which should be protected by the House. He maintained that the House could not in common justice to a large population, without authorized information, throw out a Bill of this kind upon any ex parte statement. The Bill undoubtedly ought to be allowed to go upstairs. He had only one more point to bring before the House, but it was a point of great importance. The Inspector of the Local Government Board, who was appointed by the Board to report yearly on the condition of the Metropolitan water supply, had been made aware of this project and had reported upon it. The document was long, and therefore he would not read it, but if any hon. Member would turn to the document he would find that the Inspector had reported in favourable terms on the scheme, and there was not one word in it about all the terrible results which the hon. Member for Uxbridge had stated. He found nothing in it about Windsor Castle, or the trees of Windsor Forest, or the pestilential effluvia, but he did find this passage—

"There can be no question that if the Directors succeed in carrying out this project the Company will greatly improve its position."

[Cries of "Hear, hear!"] Yes; but this position was that of a Company authorized and bound to supply London with water. The hon. Members for Northampton and Uxbridge had no consideration for the consumers; they thought only of the people who made a playground of the Thames; whereas he (Lord Randolph Churchill) thought of those who were dependent for their supply of water upon schemes of this kind. The Report went on to say—

"The consumers, numbering; nearly 500,000 persons, will benefit by having at command a larger, and, so far as the upper source is concerned, a better supply than heretofore. But this project, by the possibilities it introduces, may fairly be regarded as the initiatory step towards the improvement of the water supply of all the Thames-deriving Companies, involving the interests of more than 2,500,000 people."

He asked the House if this was a project they ought to reject peremptorily on the second reading without any examination—without the slightest consideration for the interests of the Metropolis, or for the 2,500,000 of the population who, for all they knew, were dependent for their water on this supply? He appealed with great confidence to Her Majesty's Government and the Chairman of Committees to say whether he was not perfectly justified in his contention that this was a Bill which the House was bound to send upstairs? If, after a due examination, after studying the evidence, the House was dissatisfied with the decision of the Committee the whole question could be brought before the House again. He implored the House in the interests of the inhabitants of London not to reject the Bill.

said, he intended to oppose the second reading of the Bill. He did so, not on the general grounds which had been brought forward by previous speakers, but as the Representative of a very large constituency, and a very ancient constituency, on the borders of the Thames. He was anxious to point out how their interests would be very materially affected if this measure were passed. The Corporation of Windsor— the town he had the honour to represent—had lately purchased, or were about to purchase, for the only question remaining to be settled was the amount of the purchase money which was now under arbitration by the Board of Works, a quantity of land which was to be devoted for the purpose of securing the health of the inhabitants of the town. Not only were they entering into this arrangement, but they were engaged with the present generation to pay the sum of money it was necessary to raise, although the scheme was for the benefit of generations that were to come. What would be the result to the Corporation of Windsor and its water works if this Bill passed? The measure authorized the Company to take 300 acres of land contiguous to Windsor and Eton, where the promoters meant to make shafts and adits. By doing so they would draw from the strata the water out of probably 50,000 or 100,000 acres in the immediate neighbourhood. The Bill authorized the Company to draw water which might be found in or under any lands acquired by the Company. But they could not limit themselves to the water found in or under the lands they required, because this particular piece of land was like the neck of a bottle, and would suck in and withdraw all the water out of the chalk formation. What would be the consequence to the inhabitants of Windsor and Eton? It would be found after the Corporation had purchased the land to which he referred, and had spent a large sum of money upon it, that all their wells would be tapped and dried. What security, therefore, could they have for supplying Windsor and Eaton with water, which was undoubtedly as important to those places as the supply to the inhabitants of London? The Company knew very well that the land they proposed to acquire contained a large quantity of water. With regard to the national property contained in Windsor, and particularly Windsor Castle, he would not follow all the arguments of his hon. Friend who moved the rejection of the Bill, but he would say this—that some 20 years ago there was a conflagration in Windsor Castle, and the authorities, being very much alarmed at what had occurred, immediately constructed works for wells in a high position in Windsor Forest, so that the water from certain towers then erected might find its way to Windsor Castle. If a fire were to occur there again, and these wells had been dried by the works of the Grand Junction Company, a very serious calamity might occur. He was told that the Company had made some suggestions to the Board of Works which might be satisfactory to them, but he thought that whatever terms they might offer, or whatever suggestions they might make, it would be much better for the Board of Works to rely upon and preserve the sources of supply they had now, rather than trust to others which they knew not of. There were other reasons why this Bill should not be read a second time; but, seeing that it was a Private Bill, he would not enter into them, but he would leave the measure to the judgment of the House, simply intimating that he should record his vote against it.

said, as the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) had appealed to the Government to give its support to the Bill, he wished to say a few words in answer to that appeal in regard to the course which he would recommend the House to take upon the measure. In the first place, he would point out to the House that this was no wanton application on the part of the Company, but that it was absolutely necessary for them to come to Parliament for additional powers in regard to the supply of water. The Report of the Water Examiner in London to the Local Government Board pointed out clearly last year that the demands upon the resources of this Company had approached almost perilously to the limits of supply. He would only read one paragraph of the Report in order to show what the opinion of the Water Examiner was—

"The expansion of the demand for water in the district supplied by the Grand Junction Company, and the circumstances under which the supply was carried out during the past two summers, when it approximated closely on two or three occasions to 22,000,000 gallons daily, showed that the time had arrived when a further enlargement of the works must be arranged for."

The House would see that it was consequently imperative on the Company to come to Parliament for further powers in connection with a supply of water. The question next arose whether the Company could get the enormous supply they absolutely required in the neighbourhood of their existing works. From the evidence before the House it was evident that they could not obtain the supply in the neighbourhood of their existing works, and that if they were by any means enabled to do so, it would not be a satisfactory one, in consequence of the building operations now going on. The next question was whether the proposed source of supply was, from a sanitary point of view, a good one. On that point he thought there could be no question whatever. The source from which it was proposed to obtain the supply was an infinitely superior one to that which the Company at present drew upon. Therefore, whether the House looked at the needs of the Company or the source from which they proposed to obtain a supply, the application would be found to be a justifiable one. No doubt the objections which had been raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) were of a serious nature. He had no desire to express any opinion upon those objections on the part of the Government, but he agreed with his noble Friend the Member for South Paddington that that was a question in regard to which the House was not in a position to come to a satisfactory decision. It must of necessity be a matter to be inquired into in the usual manner by a Committee of the House of Commons. The position the Government took in the matter was this —they recommended the House to pass the second reading, in order that the Bill might go before a Select Committee, where all the objections which had been raised would be fully considered, and the question would be decided upon its merits.

said he intended to ask the House to reject the Bill for precisely the reasons that the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) asked the House to pass it, and not for any of those matters which had been put to the House, no doubt accurately enough, by the hon. Members who had moved and seconded the rejection of the measure, but for a matter upon which the House was perfectly competent to pass an opinion. He spoke on behalf of the population of London. He would put this to the noble Lord and those who thought of voting with him. The proposal was to give to a private Company power to take from the Thames, which was already falling very short year by year, for the benefit of that Company's pocket, water which they were to sell at a profit, and which they should go further away to find, instead of reducing that which was now an insufficient supply. The noble Lord said that the House was not competent to judge of the question. There were matters within the knowledge of the House which they could not help recognizing. One of them was that the Thames for years, except in seasons of flood, had been deficient in volume, and was growing more deficient year by year. His own experience might not be of much value, but he frequently visited the district from which this water was proposed to be taken. He was fishing there only on Saturday last, and, therefore, he spoke with some knowledge when he said that the Thames was not more than two or three inches higher in mid-winter than it generally was in the drought of summer. It used to be that the Thames was only low in summer, but that was not the case now. It was proposed that the Grand Junction Company should take the water away and sell it, and they were told that that was a matter upon which a Committee upstairs could form a better opinion than the House itself. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board intimated that the Government were prepared to support the second reading of the Bill. He was very sorry to hear it. In the interests of the people of London he was sorry to hear such an announcement. He maintained that the Government would do better to prevent that which was an important source of health, because a well-fed river was always a source of health, from being further interfered with by a private Company which would soon have to be bought up in some of the arrangements which were about to be made. He asked the House to reject the scheme. They were told that the Company must have water —that was to say that the Company must have goods to sell. Let the Company then get their goods from a longer distance by the moans which science had placed in their hands, just as Glasgow and Manchester had to do. Why-should a private Company be allowed to convert the Thames into a muddy ditch simply for their own benefit? The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said the source from which the Company proposed to take their supply was a superior source to that from which they obtained it now. That was quite true; but why should the River itself have its volume of water extracted, and mere sewage, filth, and mud retained in it? He asked the House to reject the Bill as an impertinent attempt on the part of a private Company to make money out of the health of the people.

wished to point out that the arguments used by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington and the President of the Local Government Board were arguments which should induce the House to look at the question, not from the point of view taken by the Grand Junction Company, but from the point of view of the supply of water to London generally. It might be necessary for this Company for sanitary purposes to remove their works from Hampton to Windsor on account of the pollution of the supply by cesspools. It might, therefore, be necessary to withdraw the water supply from Hampton and for the works to be removed to some other place. On the other hand, his hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) had pointed out a number of evils which would be created if the Bill were passed. The proper course, then, was to refer the whole question of the water supply of London to a Committee. It was not a question pertaining to this one Company alone, but it was a question pertaining to the entire water supply of the Metropolis, and that being so, he ventured to suggest that those who opposed the Bill should come to an understanding that the matter should be referred to a Committee in order that the whole question of the supply of water to London should be thoroughly gone into.

in supporting the Amendment, said, he hoped the House would allow him to say a few words, as he regarded himself to some extent as an expert, being himself the Chairman of a large Water Company. The intention of the promoters of the Bill appeared to be twofold. First, to obtain a superior supply of water; and, secondly, to take no more water out at Windsor than they now took out at Hampton. They were told that the water supply at Hampton was impure. He thought that they ought not to condone the laxity of the Thames Conservancy Board, who, against the interests of the riparian owners, allowed to be poured into the Thames millions of gallons of sewage. He thought it was wrong that the water of the Thames should be injured owing to the laxity of the Conservancy Board. The argument was that the Company would not take more water at Windsor than at Hampton; but that argument could hardly be held by any man of business, because the difference consisted in taking water 20 miles higher up the River. It was just the same as taking a glass of water out of a nine-gallon cask instead of a water bottle, seeing that the volume of water at Hampton was only one-third of that at Windsor. He hoped the House would vote against the second reading as a protest against the laxity of the Thames Conservancy Board, and in order to prevent the inhabitants of Windsor and Eaton from being subjected to the despoiling of the most beautiful prospect near London.

said, he would not detain the House long; but he would recommend hon. Members not to depart from the usual course, but to remit the consideration of the Bill to a Select Committee. Many allegations had been made on both sides in reference to the Bill that were contradictory' to each other, and it was quite impossible that the House could, as a rule, from mere impressions, derived from different statements, come to a right conclusion with regard to them. Every one of the statements made in course of the discussion could be investigated before a Committee upstairs, where the constituents of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) and the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Richardson-Gardner) would be able to protect their own interests. He did not see why the persons represented by the hon. Members for Uxbridge and Windsor should not defend their interests before a Select Committee appointed by the House to inquire into all the vexed questions raised by the Bill. The junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Brad-laugh) had made a powerful impression by appealing to larger considerations relating to the character and state of the Thames. Now, the Thames would be represented before the Committee by the Thames Conservancy Board, who were to appear in opposition to the Bill; and it would be their first duty to show distinctly the effect of the operation of the Bill upon the condition and volume of the water. That was a question which it was absolutely necessary to decide on its merits. If the hon. Member for Northampton had displayed his usual candour in dealing with the House he would have told them, when he spoke of the low level of the Thames at this time of the year—namely, midwinter—that there was an unusually dry summer and an unusually dry winter.

said, that except after a flooded winter a few years ago, the Thames in mid-winter had been invariably low for the last 10 years.

said, that was a new allegation, but it was one that could be investigated by a Select Committee. There was nothing that the Committee would not have power to examine into with regard to the effect of the operations of the Company, if the Bill were read a second time. So far as a general review of the Thames was concerned, there was only one point which a Committee would not originally inquire into, and that was the probable general effect of the operations of the Company upon the beauty of the Thames. He did not know whether any particular persons would have power to appear before the Committee upon that matter. In reference to the general effect upon the Thames and its banks, he would suggest that if the House consented to read the Bill a second time, as he hoped it would, it might be expedient to agree to an Instruction to the Committee to consider what the effect of the Bill might be upon the beauty of the Thames, and what safeguards could be introduced in order to protect the River under that aspect of the case. Subject to that suggestion he did not know a single issue raised in the Bill which could not be fairly and properly considered by a Private Bill Committee, and which certainly could not be properly decided by the House itself.

remarked that there was one point which had not been gone into, and that was how the Bill would affect the whole supply of water to London. Many persons thought that the water supply of the Metropolis was not in a satisfactory position, and required to be considered as a whole. Therefore, every Bill passed by Parliament which tended to increase and emphasize the present system by retarding the carrying out of a larger and better supply of water for the whole of London, was one which required careful consideration. That was the view he took of the matter, because in his judgment what was required was that the entire system of the Metropolitan water supply should be carefully investigated. The more formidable and larger the Water Companies became, the more difficult it would be in future to rearrange and consolidate the whole of the water supply of London. Therefore, as they were about to enter upon domestic legislation, he thought the best course for the House to pursue, would be to wait until the entire subject could be inquired into by a Select Committee. He thought the Bill should be referred to a Committee to consider the whole question of the water supply of London.

said, he had now to ask the House to proceed with the second Resolution, which was as follows:—

"That Questions for the Closure of Debate under Standing Order XIVA. shall be decided in the affirmative, if, when a Division be taken, it appears by the numbers declared from the Chair that not less than One Hundred Members voted in the Majority in support of the Motion."

That Resolution was intended to reduce the majority required to enforce the closure from 200 to 100. He had no doubt that it would be received with regret, and possibly with dissatisfaction by many Members of the House. A proposal of that character was not made with any satisfaction by the Government; but they felt that it was essential in order that the House might proceed to the discharge of its duties. The experience they had last Session satisfied the Government that an alteration of the Rule was necessary. It might be said that this was too great a power to place in the hands of any Party; but he relied upon the fact that there was a discretion vested in the Chair which would prevent the power being exercised arbitrarily or unnecessarily. On two occasions the Chairman of Committees did exercise that power when it was proposed to apply the closure. He did not intend to revive the discussion which lasted over so many days during the last Session of Parliament, and he would only ask the House to consent to this modification of the Rule, as he believed it to be in the interest of the House itself in order to promote the due despatch of Public Business. He earnestly appealed to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Gedge) not to press the Amendment of which he had given Notice, which would make it necessary for the majority on a Division upon a Motion for the Closure to exceed the minority by at least 50 votes, a proposal that he believed would not be found possible to work in practice. Thus, if the minority numbered 180, it would require that the majority should be 230. He begged to move Rule 2.

in rising to move, at the end of the Question, to add the following words: —

"Provided always, that should the Question for the Closure of Debate be decided in the negative, no similar Motion shall be made on the same Question until after the time of two hours has elapsed,"

said, he did not feel it necessary to oppose the Rule itself; but what he proposed was that when the House had once negatived the application of the closure, two hours should elapse before it was put again. He thought some such provision was necessary in order to maintain the dignity of the House itself. He did not think that it would be a dignified proceeding to give power to put the Rule in force time after time at short intervals. As the Rule stood the Government of the day would have power of sending out their Whips and bringing in their men, and of putting a Rule in force before anything in the shape of discussion could have occurred after a similar proposal had been negatived. He thought that the House should be protected by permitting some interval to elapse before the Rule was put in operation after it had once been distinctly refused, and he was of opinion that an interval of two hours was not unreasonable. If the Rule were adopted as it stood, he was afraid that it would have a tendency to lower the debates in that House in the esteem of the country, and he was afraid it would prevent the establishment of a good feeling in the House itself. He would not trouble the House by entering into a debate upon the general principle of closure. He would simply say that he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to the propriety of amending the Rule; but he did not think that the safeguard suggested in the Amendment was an unreasonable one, or one that ought to be rejected.

said, he rose upon a point of Order to ask Mr. Speaker, whether the putting of this Amendment would preclude the discussion of the earlier part of the Rule? Would hon. Members be precluded from discussing the earlier part of the Resolution at all?

Yes; and I waited purposely before calling on the hon. Gentleman to move his Amendment, in order to give the House an opportunity of discussing the Rule as it stands.

said, he wished to oppose the Rule as it stood, and he should like to know if he would be in Order in making some observations upon that subject now?

The most regular course would be to discuss the Amendment before the House, or for the hon. Member for the Town Division of Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) to withdraw it with the leave of the House.

said, he wished to consult the convenience of the House, and in consenting to withdraw the Amendment he hoped he should not lose the opportunity of moving it at a later hour if necessary.

said, he wished to give the reasons why he objected to the Rule proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had expressed accurately the feelings of some Members of the House, when he said that the Rule would be received with a feeling of regret, and possibly even of dissatisfaction. He (Mr. Chaplin) confessed, for his own part, that he always had shrunk, and shrunk at the present moment from going any further in the direction of Closure of Debate than they had gone already. He had always entertained an exceeding dislike to the principle of closure, and he had only consented to accept it as it stood embodied in the existing Rules as an unavoidable necessity. At the same time he saw no reason for strengthening the Rule at the present moment. The experience of last Session had shown conclusively that the present Closure Rule was sufficiently drastic to enable the Government to pass any measure in spite of the most extreme obstruction that could be brought to bear against it. They were told that it was exceedingly difficult under the existing Rule to enforce the closure. For his own part he did not wish to see the closure made more easy than it was at present. He looked upon it as a dangerous weapon to place in the hands of any Government, and he regarded it as equally dangerous whether placed in the hands of a Liberal or a Tory Administration, and that it would lead in the future to probably both of two things—namely, a step in the direction of closure by a bare majority, and to its being made use of as a Party weapon. More than that, the Rule did not seem to meet what it was necessary to deal with at the present moment. What they wanted to deal with was the extreme loquacity and verbosity of hon. Members. He was quite willing to put a stop to the abuse of the freedom of speech in that House by individual Members; but he objected to go further in the direction of the Closure of Debate. For those reasons, he should feel obliged to oppose the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he thought the Liberal Party in that House had reason to congratulate themselves on the present state of affairs. It would be in the recollection of the House that the proposal of the Closure of Debate came in the first instance from a Liberal Government, and it was a measure which had the approval of every thoroughly democratic Assembly in the world. Whatever humble share the Irish Party might have taken in the debates, they had to a certain extent earned the gratitude of the Liberal Party for having brought about such a state of things. He could recollect the time which was not so very long ago, when he sat through 14 weary nights witnessing the most extraordinary and scandalous obstruction which was offered by the then Fourth Party, backed up by the present occupants of the Front Bench opposite, to the Liberal proposal for the closure. Now, however, they found the Conservative Party adjusting the rope round their own necks. It was a spectacle that filled the breasts of the Home Rule Members with the greatest possible satisfaction. As he said, they were putting a rope round their own necks. He trusted the Irish Members would very soon have the opportunity of getting hold of the end of the rope and pulling it, which they would do very tightly. In the meantime they had every reason for congratulating themselves that a great obstacle to the passing of a Home Rule Bill had been cleared out of the way. In the past he had never had any great reverence or affection for that House; but he was beginning to feel more affection for it now than he ever had for it before. He would, however, say this, that he thought the Conservative Party were committing a great mistake in extending this Rule. The proposal was to choke all discussions that were distasteful to the majority. It was a proposition that would always be used against the minority. The Conservative Party were bound to be the minority in the long run, and a proposal which would enable the majority to choke discussion so easily was a proposal which would always tend to a considerable extent to increase the tyranny of the majority. He thought that the Tory Party in giving increased stringency to the Rule, or in proposing the Rule at all, were making a considerable mistake in view of their own interests, and in view of the fact that for centuries the business of this great country had been carried on without recourse to such methods. He thought the Government ought to have tried whether, by other means, the Public Business could not be carried on, trusting to the traditions of respect for the House and reverence for its character. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had protested against the closure, but wished to see it directed against particular individuals in order to put a stop to verbosity; but it was very doubtful whether the verbosity of the right hon. Gentleman himself would not compare favourably with that of any other Member. The right hon. Gentleman had conveyed to the House what the true root of all this trouble was—namely, that the Government sought for some years to except the Irish Members from the ordinary courtesies which ought to be extended to every Member of the House. They had attempted to except a considerable number of Members from those courtesies and to cut off from them those privileges which ought to be the right of every man in the House. Hon. Members had brought this punishment upon themselves. He doubted very much whether the Irish Party would suffer most from the closure. He thought that, on the contrary, the Conservative Party would suffer more, and he had not the slightest intention of offering any opposition to the proposed Rule.

said, he did not think it would contribute to any public purpose if he were to refer with any minuteness to the proceedings in the Parliament before last, as the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) had done. He would only make this remark. The hon. Member spoke severely in condemnation of the obstruction of what he called the Fourth Party. The conduct of that Party might have been very bad; but in their opposition to closure, to whatever length it was carried, they always enjoyed the fullest sympathy of the Irish Party. He therefore doubted whether it lay in the mouth of the hon. Member to hold the Fourth Party up to execration. Passing away from that subject, he was really anxious to clear himself from all responsibility for this great change. He had been alluded to in the autumn by many Members on his own side of the House as being a person of the most dangerous Radical opinions and proclivities; as being disposed to import into that House a most drastic measure of closure; and one hon. Member had gone to the extent of warning his audience against his (Lord Randolph Churchill's) revolutionary principles. Well, his advocacy of the closure was limited to the form in which it was proposed last year. That was the form he had always had in his mind; it was the form he had pressed upon his Colleagues, and when it was adopted by the House, all his desire in regard to the closure was satisfied. They were now asked to reduce the number required from 200 to 100, in order to make it possible to carry the Closure of Debate. He was not at all without sympathy for the feelings of the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) on this matter. He thought it would have been well if the Government had exhibited a little more patience than they had manifested, and had endeavoured to rub on a little longer, in order to give a more complete control to the Rule as it was passed last year. There were many reasons why such a course should have been taken. In the first place, the Government had succeeeded in carrying a most drastic and almost revolutionary change in the Procedure of the House of Commons. Last year the difficulty in applying the closure was felt after 12 o'clock, in the small hours of the morning. It was naturally felt that it was not necessary to keep so large a body of Members in attendance in order to support the closure; but he could not see what serious difficulty there ought to be if the Unionist Party, animated in their desire to see the Public Business carried on, tried to keep 200 Members in the House out of a Party which was said to number 350 until 12 o'clock. He, therefore, thought the Government might have been content with the Resolution which was passed last year. Another reason why he thought the Government might have rubbed on with the old Rule was that the character of the Resolution which they intended to propose this year was hardly such as ought to be forced through the House by the drastic application of the closure. The Government were about to bring forward Resolutions which ought not to excite Party feelings; and the Irish policy of the Government did not require to be supported by the closure, seeing that it was not likely to receive the same kind of opposition which it met with last Session. Another reason why the Government should not have proposed an alteration of the Rule was that they had had public declarations from the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and of still more value and importance from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), that what was known as Obstruction would not be countenanced either by the Leader of the Opposition or by the Leader of the Irish Party, and that if there was any repetition of what occurred last Session it would not be with their sanction or approval. If he (Lord Randolph Churchill) had had the great honour of remaining with the Government, he should certainly have advised the propriety of leaving the Rule alone at present. He understood the Government to tell the House that it was perfectly impossible to make any progress with Public Business without the application of the closure. If that was their honest opinion, it was obvious that, however much any Member on that—the Ministerial—side of the House might question the soundness of their reasons, it was hardly possible to offer any opposition. He thought, however, that the Rule, as now proposed, was wholly unnecessary. That was merely a personal opinion, but he wished to place it on record, because he declined to be responsible for any of the consequences that might result from the extension of the closure in time to come.

said, he wished to remind the House of what occurred last Session. When it was proposed that the majority should consist of 200, he had moved to omit 200 in order to substitute 120. That proposal was negatived, so that he was unable to move his Amendment to substitute 120 as the quorum. His proposition received support from both sides of the House, though it was opposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). It was negatived, and 200 found its way into the Rule. The Loader of the House said that if he were beginning again he would be inclined to propose a smaller number than 200. That encouraged him to hope that this year the right hon. Gentleman would propose to reduce the quorum not only to 120, but still lower. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) said that the experience of last Session had shown that it was unnecessary to have a more drastic closure; but he (Mr. Craig Sellar) would like to call the attention of the House to what happened in the month of March, only five days after his Amendment was rejected, with regard to the number necessary for the closure. There were essential Votes which had to be carried in Committee of Supply on that evening—Votes on account in the Civil Service Estimates and in the Navy Estimates. The Leader of the House said it was absolutely necessary that they should be carried in the course of the evening. The discussion went on till a quarter past 1 without any of the Votes being passed. At that hour the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) moved the adjournment of the debate, and that Motion was discussed, with some acrimony, till 3.30, when a Division showed 199 in favour of going on with the Business and 61 against it, so that the absence of a single Member prevented the closure being applied to the debate on a night when it was essential to get the Votes. The closure accordingly was not adopted, and the debate went on. At 5.30 another Division was taken, and as a quorum was found to be present, 210 Members voted for the closure, and it was applied, and one of the Votes was carried. But this majority did not continue in the House; in the next Division it fell to 141. After that four Divisions were taken, and still there was no quorum present. On every occa- sion the quorum was higher than the 120 he had proposed, but did not reach 200. At 1.10 in the afternoon, 250 Members were present and voted for the closure, and the essential Votes were carried, after a sitting of 22 hours. During the rest of the Session the quorum was frequently short of the necessary 200. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House had now come forward with a proposal to reduce the quorum to a manageable number. The House—by which he meant the majority—must be master of its own time. The majority were sent there to carry on the Business of the country. But if it were not master of its own time it could not carry on the Business of the country. He hoped that in future the closure would be more frequently resorted to for the purpose of carrying on Public Business. He was convinced that no Minister of the Crown would ever be able systematically to abuse the Closure Rule. There were always enough men of independent mind in the House who would resist such a proposal even from the most arbitrary Minister, and they would be supported by the country outside. No Minister who attempted to abuse the Rule would again have a majority in that House, or would come back again as a Minister of the Crown.

said, he very much regretted that his right hon. Friend below him (Mr. W. H. Smith) should have found it necessary to propose this New Rule. He (Sir Robert Fowler) would have supported last year a proposal to substitute 150 for 200 as the quorum. He did not consider that number an unreasonable one, as the Members of the Government were always over 30 in number, and, therefore, to have 150 present only meant that 120 independent Members should come down to support the Government. The experience of last Session showed that at certain times there was great difficulty in securing the attendance of 200 Members; but it must not be forgotten that the Rule they had passed for curtailing late Sittings would very much diminish that difficulty. He therefore regretted that this proposal should have been made.

said, that an Amendment stood on the Paper in his name to the effect that the majority should exceed the minority by at least 50 votes; but, at the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, he would not press it. He thought, however, that they were making a great mistake in weaving a rope for their own necks. Last year he had proposed a proportional majority of half as many again, and to get rid of the 200 limit. His right hon. Friend had opposed both, but now he himself proposed to do away with the 200, and he believed that the right hon. Gentleman would in the future regret his opposition to the proposal that there should in all cases be a substantial majority of 50. He very much regretted the course which the right hon. Gentleman had taken; but, as he was a hearty supporter of the right hon. Gentleman, he would not move his Amendment. In common with many other Conservative Members, he was pledged, when he entered the House, against closure by a bare majority. Last Session there was a difficulty in applying the closure, because often it was found that the necessary quorum was not present. On six divisions only was the majority less than half as many again of the minority, but on no single occasion did the majority exeed the minority by less than 50.

said, that he had always supported a Rule of Closure in the House. He thought the House ought to have complete control over its time, and that, therefore, any Resolution to make the closure more effective in regard to giving power to the House itself to regulate the time of its discussions, he would cordially support. The mere fact that a majority of the House, represented by the Government of the day, should have charge of the Closure of Debate, by making the Motion for it, would be exercised under a sense of responsibility and generally with discretion. The Government were always the party of action; it was the minority that was the party of inaction. So it was the interest of the former to get on with as little friction as possible. His objection was, that last year the Government had introduced a most unfortunate provision into the Closure Rule. Instead of making the House and the Government of the day responsible for the use of the closure, the Government had hauled in the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees, and made them responsible. As he had thought then, and as he continued strongly to think now, it was most desirable that the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees should be outside the action of any objectionable Rules which were calculated to bring them into friction with the House of Commons. Therefore, although he would support with the greatest pleasure a Rule to make the closure more effective, speaking only for himself, he was unwilling to vote for this change, because it would be much more frequently applied and must necessarily increase the responsibility of the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees in giving judgment as to whether the Rule should be applied or not. He thought now, as in last year, that the Government were making a great mistake, and were endangering the position of the Chair by making the Speaker or Chairman of Committees give any opinion whatever upon the application of this Rule. Although he would at once have voted for the proposal that the majority should consist of only 100, if the Speaker and Chairman had not been introduced into the question, he was not disposed now to vote for it when it was to facilitate an application of the closure which would bring the Speaker and the Chairman into collision with the House unnecessarily.

said, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House had announced that he spoke for himself only, and that he did not commit right hon. Gentlemen who sat with him. For his own part, if he (Mr. Raikes) had intervened earlier in the debate, he would have ventured to recommend the proposed alterations upon the very arguments which the right hon. Gentleman had used against it. He confessed that if this Rule were to be applied only by a bare majority of the House—provided that majority exceeded 100—in his opinion it would be a matter of very grave consideration for the House; but, having regard to the fact that the Rule last year had most wisely, and as experience had shown most fortunately, interposed the authority of the Chair as a protection to the minority, he thought that it was possible to trust to a bare majority, if consisting of 100 or over, the right of closing a debate when the Chair had sanctioned that Question being put to the House. As it was said last year, and the experience of last Session proved it, the rights of the minority would never be endangered in the House so long as the Chair was filled as it was last year. The experience of last year furnished, indeed, the precise material which enabled the Government to recommend the proposed extension of the Rule, and without that experience they would not be in a position to make the recommendation. Many hon. Members of the House were in favour of something like a proportional majority. But the House had always shrunk from an express concession to a minority of the right to decide a question, and had preferred to deal with this proposal rather from the view of exacting a sufficient proportion in order to give effect to the wish of the majority. He was not ashamed to say that he was one of those who opposed the Standing Order establishing the closure when it was introduced by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone); but the principle having been accepted by the House, it became their duty, as practical men, to make it effective, and not ineffective, in its operation. There were many cases in which it was impossible to have a large quorum; and, in view of the earlier Sittings of the House, it would most likely be found that during the dinner hour the House would be more sparsely attended than in the past. The House of Commons could not "eat its cake and have it," and if hon. Members were determined to go to bed earlier, there must be some method of shortening the debates. Although the Rule might endanger liberty of debate if passed without the Proviso which required the previous assent of the Chair, he believed that so long as that most important and beneficial Proviso was retained, the House might safely trust itself to the operation of the Rule as his right hon. Friend proposed to amend it.

said, the debate proved once more that time brought round its revenges. In 1882 the Conservative Party were opposed to the application of the closure in any form whatever; but having tried it with certain dimi- nished safeguards, they were now reduced to a proposal for applying it without any real safeguard whatever. Now, the closure might be a good or a bad thing, according to the purpose for which it was applied. It might not only be useful, but necessary, to apply it, in order to put a stop to loquacity and verbosity; but when used to force through the House an unpopular measure, it might be made an instrument of oppression. Last year the closure was applied some 30 or 40 times; but, as far as he recollected, it was almost exclusively applied to one measure which was hateful to five-sixths of the Members affected by it, and which a large minority of the rest of the House could not even now mention without shame and indignation. Under such circumstances, he did not feel inclined to trust to one-seventh part of the House of Commons the power of stifling a discussion which a large section of the House might desire to continue. He agreed with the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) that the change already made in the Sittings of the House really altered the state of things altogether. It was a great hardship, as used to be the case, to compel 200 Members to sit up until 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning; but there would be no difficulty in inducing 200 out of a Party which numbered 350 to remain in attendance until 12 o'clock, if it were considered really necessary to press forward legislation.

said, he had been unable to discover in what direction the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes) tended. When the right hon. Gentleman was himself Chairman of Committees, he was about the first man to pay due deference to the rights of private Members; but when he did not fill an official position, he voted in every obstructive Division, and his example had been constantly quoted. The right hon. Gentleman had only used one real argument, and that was, that now the House had passed the 12 o'clock Rule, they ought to get through their Business quicker. Personally, he (Colonel Nolan) saw no reason why they should not continue the quorum of 200. There were always some 60 or 70 political hacks connected with every Government— he did not use the term disrespect- fully—who might be certainly relied upon to support the Government of the day; and now it would be simply necessary for the Whips to secure the attendance of some 30 or 40 more—which, as a rule, would be supplied from the ranks of the Government themselves, and the Ministry would always be sure of their majority. He defied the Government to do that if they retained 200 as a quorum, and required so large a number of Members to sit up until all hours of the morning. It was not fair to charge the obstruction in the House of Commons upon Members for Ireland, which it had been the custom to do since the time when Mr. J. Lowther and the right hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) first began to obstruct. Under the circumstances, he should vote against the Rule.

said, in order that there might be no doubt about a matter of this importance, he would ask what would be the effect of the Rule now proposed upon the existing Closure Rule? Would the second alternative in the existing Rule which pointed to the opposition of not less than 40 Members, and the support of more than 100, be superseded if the Rule now proposed were passed by the House?

The new Rule would be the only Rule of Closure as far as the numbers were concerned, and the alternative which the hon. Baronet referred to would entirely disappear.

said, he rose to make a personal explanation. He thought he had heard the hon. and gallant Member for North Galway (Colonel Nolan) accuse him of having been guilty of obstruction. He altogether repudiated such conduct, and he desired to add that the only time when he was accused of these proceedings he had the honour of being defended by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), who came forward in the most gallant manner and absolved him from the charge of having done anything of the kind.

said, he could quite understand the reluctance with which his proposal had been received by some hon. Members on that side of the House to make any further alteration in the Closure Rule. It was because he had sat in his place from the meeting to the rising of the House during a whole Session that he felt compelled to come forward and ask the House to give this additional facility for the conduct of Business of the House. He was one of those who in 1882 expressed reluctance to accept any form of closure at all. He was then under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) might have exercised an authority and influence in the House which would have enabled them to get through the Business without invoking the closure; but once the House had adopted the closure, in the nature of things it became necessary to make it effective. They had, he was sorry to say, parted with the old traditions of the House which sufficed for the efficient conduct of Business; and if anything could bring them back, no one would be more glad than he to endeavour to do so. Therefore it was that the Rule wanted strengthening, for there were periods in the course of the evening when any hon. Member who took an impartial view of the conduct of Business would say that it was for the advantage of the country and of the House that the discussion should be then terminated. He believed the course now proposed to be necessary, and that the safeguards which surrounded it would make it impossible for any Minister to abuse it.

said, that the principle which found favour with some of his hon. Friends on the Select Committee on Procedure, by which the closure should be guarded against abuse, was to secure that a certain number of persons should be present when the vote was taken; but his own opinion was that the present quorum of 200 was no guarantee whatever against injustice being done. The feeling which animated hon. Members in voting was not altered whether they had 200 or 100 present. With 200 they might be guarded against surprise; they could not apply the closure as often with 200 as they might with 100. But they did not safeguard that it would be applied more justly had they 600 Members. With regard to the diminution from 200 to 100, he confessed he had no fear that regard to justice would be any the less. But he always regarded closure by bare majority as one of the greatest perils to that House. He utterly distrusted mere majorities of that House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) secured that closure should be on the initiation of the Chair. Undoubtedly that was a safeguard. Now the security was that the Chair must consent. That was a most alarming responsibility to put upon the Chair, and he confessed that he himself had felt it. [Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear !] He heard the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) say "Hear, hear!" but he would press upon him that he must make his choice whether the burden rested with the Chair, or whether he would secure some other guarantee than that of the presence of a certain number of Members. If they were going to relieve the Chair, as he thought it could be relieved, of responsibility, then they must come to some other guarantee than that of the mere presence of numbers—either a certain proportion or a certain minimum balance, as suggested by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Sydney Gedge). The fact that the House had adopted new and shorter hours was, to his mind, a very strong reason in favour of the present proposed change, and he disagreed with what the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) said about new hours. If they were to have shorter hours they must have the means of more expeditious work.

said, he could not allow the Question to be put without stating his firm belief that if the Conservative Party were sitting on the other side of the House they would oppose this proposal. He had always been among those who were opposed to closure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) had shown by his action in 1882 that the House had deteriorated from what it was in olden days. It was not required then, but now it was said that the Business of the House could not go on without it. He regretted that his right hon. Friend had thought it necessary to introduce this question again. He agreed with the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney) that if they altered the Closure Rule at all, they should have required a proportional majority, so that it might be seen whether the opinion of the House was in favour of the closure or not. The proposal was now that the question should be decided by a bare majority. He, for one, did not agree to that principle. He could only regret that this was the view of the Government; and he felt from a Conservative point of view that when some of those very important questions now rife and talked of by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway came to be decided in that House, they would find they had by the Rule of Closure made a rope for their own necks. They might find on that question of the deepest importance, the Church of England, that this Rule would be turned against themselves. He, therefore, entered his strongest protest against the proposal of his right hon. Friend.

said, he should not trouble the House with any remarks on the subject of the Amendment which he had placed on the Paper relating to this Rule.

in rising to move the third Rule against "disorderly conduct," said, he proposed the Rule with great regret; but scenes that were in the memory of hon. Members, and which occurred during the last Session, showed the necessity of such a Rule. The Government felt that if the House was to maintain its ancient character, power should be given to the Speaker or the Chairman of Committee to name a Member on the spot when the conduct of the Member was grossly disorderly. He thought the Rule would recommend itself to the good feeling of hon. Members on both sides of the House, for it was not directed against any one section of Members, but against disorderly Members generally whoever they might be.

said, he wished to say a few words on this proposal of the Government; and, first, with regard to the last words of the first paragraph—

"Or he may call upon the House to adjudge upon the conduct of any such Member or Members."

He could not understand what was the meaning of those words. There were two alternatives. First, that the Chair might order a Member to withdraw from the House altogether, which was a ready way of putting an end to disorderly conduct; secondly, the Speaker or Chairman might act under the Rule and name a Member in pursuance of the Standing Order. But he might also call upon the House to adjudge upon the conduct of the Member. The two first cases were governed by Rules which prevented debate; but this last proposal would immediately throw the whole question open, and there would be a debate as to whether the hon. Member had been so disorderly as to justify the punishment which might be given. It seemed to him, therefore, that instead of saving time this Rule would certainly waste time, and instead of quelling disorder it would rise to greater heat. Then, with regard to the latter part of the Rule, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) whether there had been any practical inconvenience in allowing a Member who had been suspended to remain within the precincts of the House? If in practice that had not been the case, then, he said, this was a needless aggravation of the punishment. They called on a Member to be in his place to serve on a Committee on a Private Bill, and yet they were to exclude him from all other service. He could not think that this was necessary. If the authorities of the House were to say that it was necessary, then he submitted that it should be in the judgment of the Chair, at the moment, if necessary, to order the Member to withdraw from the precincts of the House. One could hardly imagine such a case; but in case of need the decision should lie with the Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means. Upon the general question of this Rule he pointed out that it was a grave and new power to place in the hands of the Chair. He was not prepared to say that he did not think some cause might have arisen for increased power in this direction. It was, after all, a mitigation of the severity of the existing Rule, which ordered that, if a Member was named for disorderly conduct, he should be suspended for at least a week. The present Rule was so far a mitigation that it provided for suspension for one night and no longer. It was true that this was left entirely in the discretion of the Speaker and the Chairman; and after the best consideration he had been able to give to the subject, he was not unwilling to intrust that limited power to those high officials, believing as he did that when the responsibility rested entirely upon them, and when they were not afterwards sheltered in any way by a Vote of the House, they would be very slow to exercise these powers. And it was, after all, a question on which the Speaker or the Chairman were able at once to pronounce judgment. They were witnesses of the disorder; and, that being so, he thought they might safely be trusted never to suspend the Member under this Rule unless the disorder was gross and patent. That brought him to the consideration of a point on which he desired to address the House. He trusted that if ever this Rule were put in operation, both those high officials would have regard to the fact whether or not there had been provocation. He did feel, after what had happened in the House in recent years, that there was some necessity for making a protest on that ground. They had heard hon. Members in that House make charges against other hon. Members which he ventured to say, if such things continued, would make it impossible to hope for order in debate. They were quite aware of the decision which Mr. Speaker had given when appealed to; and he knew that it was strictly in accordance with precedent — namely, that a Member making a charge made it upon his own responsibility. That was the decision in old days; but in old days with that decision there went this security, that it was quite certain that if the hon. Member made a heinous charge against another, and failed to go to the proof, he would meet with the contempt of all Parties in the House. He was not so sure that that security existed now. Those were days when Parliament was jealous of the honour of every Member who sat in that House; those were the days before Parliament had surrendered its guardianship of the honour and character of its Members; those were the days before it was not the fashion to tell hon. Members against whom charges were made in that House— "If you think you are aggrieved, you can right yourselves in the Law Courts." He did not want, however, to rake up that controversy; that matter was settled, he thought lamentably, on a former occasion; but he did say that if the same line of conduct was to be pursued in future, and they had had some indication of it during the present Session—if hon. Members were to be allowed to make charges of the gravest and most heinous character against other hon. Members of that House, before any heat or disorder was produced on an occasion of the kind, it would be necessary for the whole House to have regard to the question as to whether provocation had been offered or not. He had thought it necessary to say these few words on a question which seemed to him of late years to have become very grave, and he hoped that in future charges of this nature would not be made unless hon. Members were ready to go on to the proof not elsewhere, but in that House.

said, it was impossible to his mind to approach the consideration of that question without taking into view the effect which might possibly come about with regard to the relations of the Chair and Members in different parts of the House. He was strongly of opinion that the power to punish any Member of the House ought to be retained absolutely within the immediate control of the House itself, and that the liberty, credit, and position of a Member of the House ought not to be placed at the mercy of any man, no matter whether of the Speaker or of the Chairman of Committees. He did not intend to go into the matter which had been alluded to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), but he (Mr. Dillon) said that it was a matter of the utmost delicacy for the Chair, and one which the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees would eagerly wish to be relieved from, to decide in a time of great excitement in that House, when retorts and charges were hurled from one side to another, upon whom the blame rested. He remembered an hon. Member who never rose in that House without making the most provocative and deliberate charges against other hon. Members. That hon. Member had made charges of that character against himself which on one occasion had caused him to appeal to the Chair for the protection which he received. He had read the other day the boast made by the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Sanderson), who said at Brighton that when he rose in the House he always succeeded in provoking Irish Members to rise and reply to him.

I rise to Order. I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I did not say on all occasions. I said on some occasions.

said, the observation of the hon. and gallant Member went to strengthen the argument of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford. The hon. and gallant Member made a boast of an achievement in that direction, and had announced that so long as he had a seat in the House he would pursue the some course. He (Mr. Dillon) said that as long as that course was persisted in, it would certainly aggravate the difficulty of maintaining order in that House. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House had stated on introducing this Rule that it was not aimed against any Party of the House. He trusted that that might be said of all those Rules. The Government stated that this Rule was equally necessary to control their adherents below the Gangway as to control Members in other parts of the House. He trusted hon. Gentleman opposite would follow out a totally different line of conduct in the future, and he might be allowed to say that if they did, there would be no need to apply the Rule to hon. Members on his side. If there had ever been disorder in the House he claimed the right to say that it had not had its origin among hon. Members on these Benches; if it had taken the shape of violence or disorder coming from the representatives of Irish constituencies, it had been the result of a set that had been made upon a certain section of the House. An attempt had been made to treat them differently from the way in which any other section of the House had been treated. Coming to the more general question of the operation of the Rule the fear he had —looking at the matter simply from a point of view of a Member of the House —was, that it would inevitably tend to make the Speaker a partizan. Let the House consider what occurred in the American House of Representatives; they saw there a fierce Party struggle being carried on and the Speaker expected to carry out the wishes of his supporters and that he was a slave of his Party in the sense of carrying out their views. Again, in one of the great Dependencies of this country—in the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, where very stringent powers were in the hands of the Speaker, they had seen every single Member of the Front Opposition Bench successively carried out of the House by the orders of the Speaker, the Secretary of State for the Home Department denounced, and the Speaker called a dirty tool of the Government. He did not say they would ever reach that point; but he did say that such an example ought to carry with it a warning to Members of that House before they went many steps in that direction. He regarded it as a most unfortunate thing that in carrying out a penal law, which always left more or less bad feeling in the mind of an hon. Member to whom it was applied, the Speaker should not have the protection of a Vote of the House, but should be compelled to execute the sentence himself. Take a case of which he had been a witness in that House, where the Speaker or Chairman of Committees named a Member to the House in mistake, being under the impression that he was the originator of the disorder. He would, under this Rule, leave the hon. Member so situated under a stronger feeling of having suffered unjustly. He considered this an unnecessary Rule, and as such he protested against it. So far from its having a good effect, he believed its effect would be exactly contrary. If Irish Members in that House were treated with ordinary decency and civility, there would, so far as they were concerned, be no need for any Business Rules whatever, and they would then be able to carry on the work of the House on those old lines which had obtained for centuries; whereas the power now sought to be placed in the Chair would, in his opinion, not only detract from the precedings of the House, but also very much detract from the authority of the Speaker.

said, he was sorry to hear the line of argument pursued by the two hon. Gentlemen who had preceded him, All the objections which had been raised as to the injustice of this Rule applied with far greater point to the original rule, by which the Speaker, with the consent of the House, was empowered to suspend a Member from his duty. The Rule, as now proposed, was a distinct mitigation of the very heavy penalties which followed on a Member being named by the Chair. The House, as a rule, would never refuse to support the Chair, and thus this Rule was a mitigation of the severity of the former one. With regard to the person to whom the Rule was to apply, it must often happen in an Assembly of 670 Members that some individual—overcome with intense excitement or emotion —should be guilty of some breach of Order. All this Rule did was to give power to the Chair to order him to withdraw, and thus give him time to come to a more reasonable frame of mind. With respect to the words of the Rule, he would ask the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. It appeared to him that lines 5 to 10 of the proposed Rule were unnecessary. Three alternatives were given. The Speaker might order a Member to withdraw, he might name a Member, or he might call upon the House to adjudge upon the conduct of such Member. What the latter alternative meant he did not know. It certainly required explanation. In his opinion it would be quite sufficient for the Speaker or the Chairman to have the power of relieving the House from the presence of an hon. Member who was labouring under temporary excitement without repeating in the Rule the words which, under the existing Rule, gave the Speaker or the Chairman power to name any hon. Member. He also objected to the saving Proviso. He considered the last words of the Rule—

"Subject, however, in the case of such suspended Members to the proviso in that Standing Order regarding their service on Private Bill Committees "

totally unnecessary. For these reasons he would suggest the omission of lines 5 to 10, and a portion of lines 13 to 15.

said, he was glad that his noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) had taken exception to the language of the Resolution, as his doing so would enable him (Mr. Raikes) to explain the matter to the House. The proposed Rule had been drawn with the object of placing before hon. Members at a glance the three classes of offences which the Rule was intended to deal with. In the first place, there was to be placed in the hands of the Speaker or the Chairman the power which, he believed, existed in the case of the Chairman of almost every public meeting—that of requiring a person to withdraw who, by offensive and improper conduct, was bringing scandal on the proceedings and interrupting the course of Public Business. That power did not at present exist, but it was a mitigating Resolution, because it would enable the Speaker to exercise that power of summary jurisdiction by requiring a disorderly Member at once to withdraw, in which case the withdrawal would only cover the whole of that Sitting, without being under the necessity of submitting his conduct to the House, and thereby calling down upon him a punishment of at least one week's exclusion. In the second place, that was to say, a graver breach of order in Debate, the Speaker would exercise the power given to him by the Standing Order with regard to order in Debate, and by naming a Member would submit his conduct to the House, which, if it thought fit, might then proceed to pass upon him a sentence of one week's exclusion, or for repeated offences a longer exclusion. But in each of these cases the decision might be summary. While there might be minor offences which might be thus summarily punished, there remained a graver class of offences which could not be decided in that summary manner. In the third place, it further recited the power of the Speaker or the Chairman in the event of an hon. Member being guilty of a still more grave offence to call upon the House to adjudge upon his conduct, when a more severe form of punishment might be inflicted upon him. In such a case a debate might probably arise. It had not been deemed expedient, however, to relieve hon. Members who were so ordered to withdraw, or who were so suspended, from service on Private Bill Committees. It would certainly be more consonant with the dignity of the House that a Member who had committed so gross a violation of order in Debate should bring upon himself exclusion not only from the House itself, but also from its precincts. This Resolution had been drawn with special care. The intention was not to make a change in the practice of the House, except in the one respect of giving the Speaker power to inflict minor and summary punishment in the case of minor offenders. He deprecated all suggestions that the decline in Parliamentary manners in recent years had been brought about by hon. Members sitting in any particular quarter of the House, and especially regretted the somewhat inflammatory suggestions of the hon. Member for Bedford, which seemed calculated to lead to mutual recrimination.

said, he concurred in the remark that it was desirable to discuss this Rule in an impartial temper, but he did not think that the observations of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) were in the slightest degree of an inflammatory character. It was a matter of common knowledge that there had been instances of grossly disorderly conduct, which were undoubtedly due to regrettable provocation, and it was right to ask the House to bear in mind the possibility of such deplorable contingencies. If this Rule had proposed to extend the powers of the Chair with reference merely to offences which were aimed at by Standing Order No. 12, he should have had great difficulty in assenting to it, because, although it was true they had confidence in the impartiality of the Chair, nevertheless the safeguard of the assent of the House, which had been dwelt upon by some, had never seemed to him to be an adequate one. It meant, after all, the consent of the majority, and the majority might be depended upon to assent to the punishment of a Member of the minority. [Cries of "Oh, Oh!"] He did not say that that would be a special defect of a Conservative majority. The Rule, as he understood from the explanation, was to be applied not merely to offences mentioned in Standing Order No. 12, but also to a new offence; it was aimed at the new offence of grossly disorderly conduct. It was an offence which no section of the House could approve of or sympathize with, and the punishment that the Rule alloted to it seemed to him to be a punishment not unworthy of the nature of the offence; it was not excessive, and it marked the sense of the House that offences of this sort should be promptly dealt with. But the last two lines of the Rule he did not see any necessity for. He should have thought the Rule would have been much simpler and equally efficient if the last two lines were left out. Upon the point of exclusion from the precincts of the House he had no particular feeling; but he knew there was a feeling against Members who had been subjected to censure appearing in the precincts of the House as if no decision against them had been pronounced. While he should be as jealous as any Member could be of interfering with fair liberty of discussion, he could not see why any occupant of the Chair should be deprived of that power of peremptorily repressing grossly disorderly conduct which was possessed by the chairman of every public meeting.

said, he should have thought that this Rule would have been resented by every Member of the House as an insult to his self-respect. He wished he could induce hon. Members opposite to agree that a Member of that House should be regarded in the light of something more than his personal capacity. Every man in that House was the freely chosen Representative of tens of thousands of persons outside its walls, and it was from that fact that the dignity of a Member of the House was derived. The provisions of this Rule were an insult to the House of Commons, and were a great deal more like the powers of a schoolmaster dealing with his pupils than those which ought, in his opinion, to be vested in one who presided over the deliberations of Members of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes) had put the case with great lucidity and with his usual courtesy, and he might perhaps be allowed to say that if all speeches were made in the same manner there would be no need at all for the Rule under consideration; but while they had Members going about the country boasting of their powers of vicarious vituperation, then he said the time had come when some such Rule might be required. Would anyone say that it conduced to the dignity of that House to enact that when a Member had been excluded from that Assembly by the presiding officer, a police constable outside should be at liberty to seize him and drive him out of the precincts of the House? He had seen the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) seized by the police and attendants, and a more disgusting and scandalous spectacle he had never witnessed. He was not at the time on the same amicable terms as now with that hon. Member, but he maintained that by that spectacle every Member of the House was personally degraded. It was now proposed to perpetuate that which was an accidental and he hoped a unique occurrence in the annals of the House. With reference to Members serving on Committees during suspension, he put this case:—A Member of the House was allowed to take part in all private and public Committees to which he was appointed; suppose that before a Committee upstairs there was a question of great commercial magnitude, such as the Manchester Ship Canal; a Member, in spite of having been excluded for grossly disorderly conduct, is allowed to form part of the tribunal that has to decide upon that momentous question and yet he was not fit to write his letters in the Library. That he thought was a reductio ad absurdum. He had never been guilty of grossly disorderly conduct, nor had he any wish to be, but he spoke of the dignity of hon. Members who were the Representatives of the people outside, and looking at that fact, he said the Government would do well to mitigate the effect of the Rule by excluding from it this most odious infringment of the liberty of the House.

said, he desired to ask if the powers of the Rule would extend to the Deputy Chairman who might be appointed. If the Rule was to bear that interpretation, then he thought that its provisions would be beyond the desires of some hon. Members on those Benches. The Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means were both officers elected after deliberate discussion, and in that respect stood in a position different from that of those who were occasionally appointed to fill the Chair.

said, the House would do well to observe that the proposed Rule did not apply to ordinary debate; it was a new Rule to apply to certain disorderly conduct which the Chairman of every assembly in the world had power to put down. But it would seem that the Speaker or the Chairman has such large powers in the first part of the Order that the latter part was altogether unnecessary. In the first place, the disorderly Member had to withdraw immediately from the service of the House; then the Serjeant-at-Arms acted on such orders as he might receive from the Chair in pursuance of the Resolution; which might be that the Member should withdraw from the House or from the precincts of the House. That was a large power. But then came a much larger one —namely, that Rule 12 was brought into operation. The Speaker or Chairman might name a Member, who would then come under all the consequences of that Rule. But if he did come under them, there was no necessity for the last words of the concluding paragraph of the Rule that the Speaker "may call on the House to adjudge the conduct of such Member or Members." He considered the latter part of the Rule very offensive. Why should they order a Member to be sent out of the precincts of the House if they considered him fit to sit in Committee on an important private Bill. They gave the Speaker power to correct any disorder, and they allowed him to bring the Member under the Rule of ordinary debate, which contained strong penal powers. As he considered the portion of the Rule to which he had referred unnecessary, he should, in order to raise the question, move its omission.

said, he thought on consideration the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment would see that it did not entirely effect the purpose he had in view. Standing Order No. 12 was incorporated in this Rule only to the extent of naming a Member, and the further powers contained in that Rule, which were expressed in words at the end, would be distinctly excluded by the fact that they were in the new Rule. The expression of a certain portion of the Rule directly, would clearly be held to be an exclusion of the remaining portion, which was not so important. If these words had any value whatever, of which he had considerable doubt, he was disposed to agree with the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) that they should leave out all the words after Resolution in line 4 so that the Rule would read—

"That Mr. Speaker or the Chairman do order Members whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the House during the remainder of that day's debate, and that the Sergeant-at-Arms do act on such orders as he may receive from the Chair in pursuance of this Resolution."

If the words were retained at all the addition of the words "according to ancient usage" could be introduced at the end of the paragraph to make clear what had been explained to the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes). The right hon. Gentleman had said there were three alternatives, and that the third alternative consisted of a paragraph by which power was retained by the House to deal with Members offending according to ancient usage. These words then should be inserted at the end of the paragraph, if the concluding portion of it was retained. If he were allowed he would move to leave out all the words after Resolution in line 4 to the end of the paragraph.

I must point out that as there is an Amendment before the House it would not be competent to the hon. Baronet to move now the omission of these words.

said, he would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Lyon Playfair) should withdraw his Amendment.

said, that the point turned upon the construction of the Rule. If the Rule stopped at the word "Resolution" no doubt the existing Rule 12 would remain entire; but Rule 12 did not touch grossly disorderly conduct generally, it only applied to special forms of it. The desire was to extend the summary form of procedure under Order 12 to grossly disorderly conduct other than that which was included in Rule 12.

said, that over and over again Members had been suspended by the Speaker under Rule 12, not for wilfully disregarding the Rules of the House or of the Chair, but for wilfully disorderly conduct. He still held to the view that the words to which he objected would tend to weaken rather than to strengthen the Rule.

said, that he should not have proposed the Rule if it had not been held by the Government and all who had been responsible for the conduct of Business in the House that some further powers ought to be given to the Authorities in the event of a Member being guilty of grossly disorderly conduct. If the words to which his noble Friend objected were not inserted he was advised by high authority that the power reserved under Standing Order 12 would not exist in connection with this Rule.

said, he felt bound to protest against the wording of the last paragraph, which not only inflicted a new and severe punishment upon a Member guilty of a new offence, but likewise inflicted a new and very much more severe punishment upon a Member guilty of an old offence which was quite sufficiently punished already. The Rule proposed to exclude from the precincts of the House, not only Members who had been ordered to withdraw for grossly disorderly conduct, but Members suspended by a Vote of the House for a week, a fortnight, or a month. This was a very severe punishment, and very grave reasons should be given for it. He thought they ought to be extremely unwilling to interfere with the dignity and comfort of hon. Members, and that they should only do it under the teaching of experience. Now, experience showed that no inconvenience whatever had come from allowing hon. Members who had been suspended for a single evening for misconduct, for which they would often in their cooler moments be exceedingly sorry, to be present within the precincts of the House. He (Sir George Trevelyan) remembered an occasion on which a number of Members who were suspended for their conduct in the House were seen in the Gallery, and no impropriety occurred in consequence. He thought that no such large punishment as that now proposed should be instituted without a public reason being given for doing so.

said, he thought that the right hon. Baronet who had last spoken (Sir George Trevelyan) was, perhaps, sufficiently answered by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman who sat next him had expressed his intention to vote for that proposal. He had himself, unfortunately, been absent from the House for a great part of last Session, but he had watched, as well as he could the course of events during that period, and he ventured to say that many things which occurred during that time were a scandal and a disgrace to the House; that their existing Rules on the subject of disorder were proved to be utterly inadequate to deal with them, and that such scandals and disgraces, whether arising from the conduct of hon. Members on the one side of the House or the other, ought to be repressed with due severity; and that they would not be so repressed unless their Rules were amended in the way now proposed and the penalty was made a real one by exclusion from the precincts of the House as well as from the House itself.

said, he would like to explain that he had not said that he should necessarily vote for exclusion from the precincts of the House, but that he had personally no strong opinion on the matter, and that in the case of extraordinary misconduct he saw no objection to exclusion from the precincts. What his right hon. Friend objected to was to that being added to the penalties imposed under Rule 12. In regard to what the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had described truly enough as the scandals of last year, he (Mr. John Morley) said that those scandals were not entirely confined to one part of the House. The right hon. Baronet had failed to show that those scandals had arisen in any degree from the presence of Members in the precincts of the House, and that was the point which had to be made out.

said, he had a few remarks only to make on this subject of the exclusion of Members from the precincts of the House, particularly those Members who were required to attend to their duties upon Select Committees. There was nothing more painful or irritating than to be compelled by some duty to come down to that building and yet to be excluded from the precincts of the House, except so far as their duty was compulsory on them. He could speak of that with the experience of three years and he trusted he might appeal to the House not to place upon others the indignities which he had himself felt very severely.

said, he rose for the purpose of referring to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair) with regard to the naming of Members; and also to the point upon which the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had just spoken. The words which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to leave out were absolutely unnecessary to be retained. The matter stood thus; the right hon. Gentleman admitted that they should retain the words of the Rule, which provided that the Speaker or the Chairman may name the Member. Then came in Standing Order 12, which provided in certain cases that a further punishment should apply. Those words being in the Rule, was there anything excluded from the operation of Rule 12? If not, then they were adding words which were unnecessary and which could not assist in any further suppression of the offence which he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) they all desired to put a stop to. With regard to the second part of the Rule—namely, that which related to the exclusion of Members from the precincts of the House, he entirely agreed with the words which had fallen from the hon. Member for Northampton. There were Committees Upstairs when the House was sitting as well as when it was not sitting; a Member, although he might be excluded from the House, would, as a Member of one of those Committees be bound to attend to the Committee work, and if the Proviso at the end of the Rule were carried, that hon. Member might be dodged up and down by some Officer of the House to see that he did not remain within the precincts when his Committee was not sitting, It would be much better to allow access to the precincts of the House and to make it clear that it was only intended that the offending Member should not come within the walls of the House itself.

said, he had listened to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), who said that, although he was not in the House last year, he had read the accounts of what had taken place. Of course, hon. Members knew well what newspaper reports were worth; but as far as his experience went he could say that the House was not more disorderly now than it was 12 years ago. He was at that time one of a small minority, and he remembered that he used not to receive a very great amount of consideration at the hands of the majority. But things had changed since then, and he was now listened to with patience, and received a fair amount of consideration. He was himself very much opposed to these penal Rules; because, as hon. Members would be aware, the statutory power of Mr. Speaker was very much greater than the statutory power of former Speakers. Candidly, he believed that the power of the former Speaker was greater than that of the present Speaker, because a hint from him used to be sufficient to quell disorder in the House, whereas now it became a squabble as to whether a certain Rule should be brought into operation. For his own part he thought they should sweep away all these penal Rules and allow the moral influence of Mr. Speaker, which was formerly sufficient, to make itself felt. That, he believed, would be sufficient to quell any disorder that might arise.

said, it seemed to him a most unfortunate thing that they should place in the hands of Mr. Speaker undue responsibility for the suppression of disorder in that House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) had spoken of the hardship to a Member undergoing this terrible punishment; but he (Sir John Simon) felt much more for the Speaker himself and for the dignity of that House. Until a few years ago, Mr. Speaker was the servant of the House, but he was now becoming its master. That could not conduce to the dignity of the House, that the Chairman or the Speaker should, as it had been described, pounce down upon hon. Members and treat them like so many school boys, ordering them out and punishing them according to his will. He thought that was not consistent with the dignity of the House, nor did he think the power was one which it would be agreeable to the Speaker or Chairman to possess. It appeared to him that the Speaker had already power enough under a Rule which authorized him to name a Member for contravening the Rules of the House. He had voted with the Government on the last Rule relating to the number of Members necessary for putting the Closure Rule in operation. This was not a Party Question at all, and in that Division he had voted against his own honoured Leader. But the Question now before the House concerned every Member of it individually. It concerned the dignity of the House, and the power now sought to be given was one that ought not to be conferred, in his opinion, either upon the Speaker or on the Chairman of Committees.

said, he was unable to agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that there was no inconvenience suffered from a Member ordered to withdraw, remaining within the precincts of the House. He thought that those who witnessed what occurred last Session would agree with him; he referred to the fact that a Member who had been ordered to withdraw came into the Gallery of the House and kept his hat on in order to show to the rest of the world that he was a Member of the House in disgrace. He thought that scene should induce hon. Members of the House to vote that the words excluding Members under certain circumstances from the precincts of the House should be retained in the Rule.

said, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) to compromise this portion of the Rule to some extent, because, as it stood at present, it was grossly unjust. At present a Member was compelled to attend on Committees even when ordered to withdraw from the service of the House. If the intention was to prevent the Member coming within the precincts he (Dr. Clark) said that Member ought to be discharged from attendance on Committee. It was not fair to require him to serve on Committees, and yet exclude him from the precincts of the House.

The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) has informed me that he wishes to move the insertion of certain words after the word "shall," in line 12; and therefore, although, as originally proposed, the Amendment was to leave out all the words after "Debate," in line 8, the Question I shall put is to omit all the words after the word "debate," in line 7 to the word "shall," in line 12.

said, that in order to mitigate the severity of the Rule as it now stood, he proposed to insert after the word "shall," in line 12, the words "if Mr. Speaker or the Chairman so direct." The Question had been pretty fully debated, and he did not desire to take up the time of the House by re-stating any of the arguments. He would simply point out what he thought had escaped the attention of the Government—namely, that the Rule would add tremendously to the severity of a Rule which was applicable to other offences. When anybody was suspended from the service of the House for a week or a month, he was to be further punished by exclusion from the precincts of the House. They might, under this Rule, exclude a Member from the precincts of the House for a month for an offence aimed at by the old Rule, and so exclude him while he was attending to Private Bill Legislation. That was a monstrous state of things, and one he did not think the Government ever contemplated when they drew up the Rule. It was possible, however, under peculiar circumstances, that in order to prevent disorder, it might be necessary to order a Member to withdraw from the precincts of the House. The Speaker or the Chairman, as the case might be, would be the best judge of the necessity of such an order. He put it to the First Lord of the Treasury whether any inconvenience had been found in practice to arise from Members under suspension being allowed to enter the precincts of the House. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman could point to a single instance of inconvenience, and therefore he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept the present Amendment, which was intended to mitigate the severity of the Rule as it stood.

said, he was a little surprised the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) should propose to add these words, because the hon. Gentleman was strongly opposed on a former occasion to the proposal that the Speaker should have any voice whatever in the question of the closure—he objected to the additional and invidious responsibility thrown on the Chair. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) had no wish to make this Rule unnecessarily harsh against hon. Gentlemen who might come under its operation. It did not appear to him that the question as to whether hon. Members of the House had suffered inconvenience from the fact that hon. Members who had been suspended from the service of the House had been allowed to enter its precincts during their suspension was at all relevant to the point at issue. The question really was, whether the penalty inflicted upon hon. Members for grossly disorderly conduct, for disobeying the Speaker or the Chairman, for delaying the Business of the House, for exposing the House to contumely and reproach, was sufficient at present. It appeared to him that the only ground on which hon. Members could desire to have access to the precincts of the House was that of enabling them to discharge their duties as Members of the House. The privileges which the Library afforded, and the other privileges which they possessed, were privileges which were afforded to them solely as Members of the House; and, therefore, when they were suspended from the discharge of their duties, it was not unreasonable that they should also be suspended from the privileges. The only object the Government had in view in proposing this Rule was to prevent a repetition of the scenes which admittedly had disgraced the House of Commons. He hoped that the penalty which was now sought to be imposed upon Members guilty of disorderly conduct would be sufficient to prevent a repetition of scenes which all must deplore. He was reluctant to add to the invidious duty which undoubtedly the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would throw upon the Chair; but if was the opinion of the majority of the House that such duty should be imposed upon the Chair, he would raise no objection to the proposed alteration. Personally, however, he thought it would be better to leave the Rule in the form in which it now stood.