asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the advertisement headed "Army Service" has been instrumental in obtaining recruits; and, whether there is any intention to discontinue its insertion in the Provincial Press?

The advertisement was discontinued from July 1. It is difficult to estimate what effect it had; but it was, without doubt, useful when the recruiting agencies were not fully developed. Now, it is not thought necessary to spend so much in advertising; and the present time, when the Army establishments are ful and recruits plentiful, affords a good opportunity of testing the effect of discontinuing the advertisement.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether all the details of the naval ordnance stores issued to the Fleet during the recent preparation for manœuvres were complete in all details; and, if not, to what extent they were short of establishment, giving the quantity and description of ordnance store deficient?

The ordnance stores supplied to the Fleet were complete in all important particulars, with the exception of the ammunition for the small quick-firing guns, of which there is a considerable deficiency, which, however, is being rapidly made good.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can state on what grounds Mr. James Hughes and Mr. Thomas Parker, whose certificates of fitness have been sent to the Home Office, have had their second class certificates under Section 80 of the Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Act refused?

The Inspector has reported that the functions discharged by these men were not functions substantially corresponding to those of an under manager; but the information which has reached me in support of the men's application has led me to make further inquiry, the result of which will be communicated to my hon. Friend.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the report in The Coatbridge Express of the 27th ultimo of an action for slander tried at the Airdrie Sheriff Court before Sheriff Mair on the 25th; whether Sheriff Mair is correctly reported to have asked three successive witnesses, who swore that they had seen pursuer the worse for drink, whether they were teetotallers; and on their replying in the affirmative to have said to the first "Go away, I don't believe you;" to the second "You may go now, because I don't believe you;" and to the third "You may go away;" and, whether, considering the public stigma thus cast upon the sworn testimony of total abstainers by the Airdrie Bench, he proposes to take any action in the matter?

The case referred to was one at the instance of an Inspector of Police and a constable against whom a clergyman had made in a newspaper an accusation of drunkenness in commenting on an hotel licence case, in which the officer's evidence had influenced the Bench on the question of granting the licence. An apology was tendered and accepted in the case of the Inspector. The constable's case went to trial. The Sheriff did state, in regard to the evidence of two witnesses, that he did not believe them; but this was not on their stating that they were abstainers, but because their evidence was contradictory, and their demeanour in giving it unsatisfactory, and that, as regards its main statements, it was contradicted by the unimpeachable evidence of several respectable people. The Sheriff did not cast any stigma upon the evidence of teetotallers. On the contrary, in giving judgment, he stated that, in ordinary cases, a teetotaller's evidence was most reliable. But he did say that in questions relating to intoxicating drinks and their effect, teetotallers were apt to take extreme views and form mistaken conclusions. I may add that the constable who was alleged to have been repeatedly intoxicated has a very high character, having been 15 years in the Force, during which period no charge or report has ever been made against him at any time until the letter was published of which he complained. I may add, also, that I think it extremely unlikely that my friend the Sheriff, whom I know very well, would have said anything against teetotallers, because he happens to be one himself.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether an Orange flag was exhibited from one of the windows of the Constabulary barrack in Obins Street, Portdadown, on the morning of the 12th instant, during the Orange celebrations in that town; and, if so, will the Inspector General of Constabulary take any action in the matter?

, in reply, said, that the District Inspector of Constabulary reported that the allegations contained in the Question of the hon. Member were devoid of foundation.

I wish to ask whether the whole town did not see the flag out of the window; and, whether the right hon. Gentleman will make further inquiries into the matter?

If the right hon. Gentleman will lay the facts before me on which he relies, I will consider them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the accounts in the public journals of the recent execution at Oxford, and to the evidence of Berry, the hangman, before the Coroner, that under the present system of executions revolting accidents are occasionally unavoidable; and, whether, in the interests of public decency, he will introduce some measure to regulate the methods and procedure of executions?

Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to this matter, which has been fully inquired into. Whatever method be adopted of inflicting capital punishment by hanging there is a liability to accidents. Upon the whole, the accidents that may occur in the system followed at Oxford are less objectionable and revolting than those to which a system involving a shorter drop is liable. I should be unable to suggest a measure which would make these deplorable accidents impossible. I am glad to state that they are not frequent.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If it is the intention of the Government shortly to alter the present Rules with regard to the compulsory retirement of commanding officers of regiments, so that the regimental command shall be retained for at least four years; and, if so, whether the existing Rules, by which experienced and meritorious commanding officers are now about to be removed at the end of two years, entailing results detrimental to the Service, and a very heavy cost upon the country, might be suspended?

Under the existing Royal Warrant every lieutenant-colonel appointed as such to a regiment from the 1st of January, 1887, is, subject to age, appointed for four years certain. I explained last year, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), the reasons why, in justice to officers of lower rank, the tenure of officers who were already lieutenant-colonels on the date named could not be extended. I may, however, add that in special cases clearly for the good of the Public Service the command of a lieutenant-colonel can be extended for a period not exceeding two years.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether he can yet state the intentions of the Government as to giving any assistance to the English University Colleges?

The Government are prepared to give some assistance to the English University Colleges; but the mode and principles of distribution raise very difficult questions, which must necessarily take some time to arrange. No arrangement has been made for a grant in connection with this year's Estimate.

asked the Secretary of State for War, What is the amount paid out of Army Votes (other than the Medical Vote) for newspapers; what number of newspapers are filed for official purposes, and what proportion of those paid for are treated as the personal property of officials; what are the three chief newspapers so paid for, and what is the amount paid for each; and, if he will give analogous details as to the intended expenditure in the present financial year?

The sum last year in War Office contingencies for newspapers was £257 15s. 3d. and besides this there would be many items for newspapers at out-stations in other Votes. The expenditure for the present year is not likely to be materially different. Speaking generally, all newspapers are taken for official purposes; and though space does not allow of many sets being filed, extracts are retained which affect particular branches of work. The newspapers of which most copies are taken are The Times, Daily News, Standard, and Morning Post. Those newspapers which are not required for filing, or are not otherwise wanted, become mere waste paper, and the officials for whose use they are taken are at liberty to retain them if they please.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had any objection to state what were the three chief newspapers so paid for, and what was the amount paid for each?

The principal papers are the London morning papers and the military papers. I will show a list of them to the hon. Member privately. In reply to a further Question by Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR,

said, there was no public or official or personal reason why this information should be withdrawn from the House of Commons.

gave Notice that he would move for a Return.

asked the Postmaster General, What further progress has been made in the matter of connecting Bermuda with Halifax, Nova Scotia, by telegraphic cable?

, in reply, said, he was afraid he could give no further answer than that the question was still under the consideration of the Treasury.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether tenders for a large number of sets of new valise equipments were recently invited; whether the invitations to tender were withdrawn, and the contract given to the inventor, Colonel Slade; whether the execution of such contract was by him handed over to Messrs. Ross and Co., who had been struck off the list of Army contractors; whether a portion of this new valise equipment consisted of French canvas, for which Messrs. Ross have the sole or principal agency in this country, and whether it was now for the first time used in the valise equipment; and, if so, whether it is usual to give contracts to middlemen instead of manufacturers, and to allow the middlemen to transfer their execution to contractors who have themselves been struck off the list; and, whether it is intended to introduce further into the equipment of the Army an article the supply of which in England is solely in the hands of such contractors, and which in any case must be procured from abroad, and might not be procureable in time of war?

Tenders were recently issued for 1,000 sets of the new valise equipment, which are practically for experimental trial. The tenders were, however, withdrawn, because patterns were not available; and, in the meantime, a request by the inventor and patentee to be permitted to make these sets was granted. Colonel Slade has been told that Messrs. Ross cannot be allowed to have any share in this contract, nor can they be recognized as his agents. In this equipment a small pouch to contain a spare magazine is made of French canvas; but that material is not essential to the manufacture of these pouches. I am afraid that, in many cases, it cannot be avoided that patentees should act as middlemen.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has now received information as to the recent manufacture of about 30,000 waist belts and 7,000 pairs of gaiters for the British Army by French soldiers undergoing sentence in a French military prison; and, up to what date did this employment of foreign penal labour at low rates, upon the clothing and accoutrements of the British Army, continue?

Since the hon. Member asked me a Question on this subject I have received a statement from the contractors, whose good faith I have no reason to doubt, that in 1885 and 1886, when there was very great pressure on the English trade, they had the sewing of certain articles done in a military fort where French soldiers were detained for offences against military discipline, to the extent of about 4 per cent of an order which they held for accoutrements; but that they have not employed this source of supply for any work they have started for Government during the last two years. As regards gaiters, they made some at the fort for a private firm; and the contractors believe that a portion of them were afterwards submitted by that firm to the Clothing Department. I think the hon. Member will, therefore, see that there is some exaggeration in the Question. But I have no wish to encourage this supply of goods from foreign sources; and I have given directions for a modification to be made in the form of future contracts, which will, I hope, prevent its recurrence.

As the right hon. Gentleman mentioned exaggeration, can he deny that these are the correct figures?

said, that 4 per cent was very different to 30,000.

I got the figures from the contractors themselves.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have received any official information with reference to a Revolution which is reported to have broken out in Venezuela; and, whether, diplomatic relations being suspended, Her Majesty's Government have given any instructions with reference to the protection of the lives and property of British subjects in that country?

News has reached Her Majesty's Government of a revolutionary outbreak in the Province of Guarico, connected with the election of the new President of Venezuela. British interests in that country are at present under the protection of the German Representative.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the rate of interest allowed to depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank will be reduced to £2 5s. per cent per annum on December 31 next; and, if not, what reduction in the rate is contemplated?

, in reply, said, it was not proposed to reduce the rate to £2 5s. on December 31. No such reduction could be made without further legislation; but some step in the direction indicated by the hon. Member could not be long delayed.

(Sutherland asked the Lord Advocate, Whether ratepayers in Scotland who are in arrear of poor rate at the time of the election of a Parochial Board are entitled to vote for candidates at such election, or to sit at such Board if elected; whether Evan Sutherland, esquire, of Skibo, in the County of Sutherland, being in arrear of his poor rate at the time of the election of the present Parochial Board of Creich, in the said County of Sutherland, now sits as a member of that Board, and has been elected its Chairman in the face of the protest of several members; and, whether, in these circumstances, his election is valid?

This is a purely legal Question; and, in reply, I beg to refer the hon. Member to Sections 22, 23, and 24 of the Poor Law Act of 1845, which deals with the qualifications of members of Parochial Boards and electors. I beg also to refer him to Section 27, which provides a means of testing the validity of any disputed election. Mr. Sutherland is, I have no doubt, a member of the Parochial Board, in virtue of his qualification as an owner under Section 22, and is not an elected member. The electing of a Chairman is left entirely to the Board by Section 31 of the said Act.

asked, whether it was not the duty of the Law Officers of the Crown to answer legal Questions put to them across the Table of the House?

said, he did not consider it was the duty of the Law Officers to do so.

asked, whether it was not the case that this rule as to the payment of rates applied only to occupiers and not to heritors?

said, he stated that he had no doubt Mr. Sather- land was put upon the Board as an owner, and not as an elected member.

repeated his Question to the First Lord of the Treasury as to the duty of the Law Officers to answer legal Questions.

I have always understood that a Question on a point of law is one which it is not compulsory upon any Law Officer of the Crown to answer. There are methods of obtaining decisions upon points of law; and it would be inconvenient if the Law Officers of the Crown expressed an opinion upon questions which might become sub judice.

asked, whether it was not the fact that sometimes owners were ten times more numerous on Parochial Boards than elected members?

I think that might certainly happen sometimes.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a proposed lottery for the Cathedral of St. Macartan, in the diocese of Clogher, for which lottery as many as 200,000 tickets have been printed, and amongst the prizes for which are two sums of £150 each; and, whether, such lottery being illegal, he will cause the necessary steps to be taken to prevent its being persisted in by those who are responsible for its promotion?

asked, whether the proceeds of the lottery were not entirely to be devoted to the funds of the Cathedral?

, in reply, said, he had seen the tickets referred to, and he believed the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sexton) was right in saying that the proceeds were to be devoted to the Cathedral purposes. He could not do more than repeat what he had said in reply to a previous Question, the effect of which was that the matter was under the consideration of the Attorney General for Ireland.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is correct that the flagship Agincourt, under the command of Admiral Rowley, collided with the steamship Sestos; if so, will he state when and where the accident occurred, who is to blame, and the extent of damage to each ship?

, in reply, said, he had received no details beyond those which he communicated to the House yesterday. The damage to the Agincourt was slight; but he regretted to say that one of the marines was killed.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Army Estimates originally included the amount for the current year of an annuity of £1,000 agreed to be paid to Major Watkin; and, if so, why this item has been withdrawn; whether his attention has been called to a statement made by General Alderson before the Select Committee on Army Estimates (Q. 4665) that this sum would have to be "got out of the Vote somehow;" and, how does he intend to provide the money?

The annuity to Major Watkin will be met out of the item "Rewards to inventors." In reply to a further Question from Mr. PICKERSGILL,

said, this item was originally included in the War Office Estimate. The reasons for its withdrawal were fully stated in the Report of the Select Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he proposes to take any action in reference to the specific complaints against certain constables with respect to their conduct on Saturday last?

With reference to the cases mentioned in this House on Monday, the 16th instant, I am having inquiry made, which is not yet completed. But, as I stated in the same debate, the only satisfactory mode of settling these complaints is for the persons aggrieved to bring a charge before a magistrate.

asked the right hon. Gentleman, whether he recognized any responsibility for the police as being part of his servants?

Most certainly; but I do not recognize it as part of my duty to inquire into their conduct. Inquiries of that sort are not satisfactory unless a public complaint is made. Such inquiries must necessarily be imperfect, if conducted without the safeguard of cross-examination in open Court.

asked, what should be done if magistrates refused to entertain, or rather dismissed, the summonses against the police, as they always did?

When the hon. Member says "as they always do," does he mean that the magistrates do not perform their duty? That involves a charge against the magistrates, which I must entirely repudiate.

wished to know how a complaint was ever to be made by a poor man in this country, where justice cost so much?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that the Justices at Stratford Petty Sessions on Friday, July 13, are reported to have sentenced Charles Edwards, aged 10, to be sent to a reformatory school for six years; and, whether, inasmuch as the 29 & 30 Vict. c. 117, s. 14, limits the power of Justices in such cases to not more than five years, he will take any action the matter?

Yes, Sir; it is a fact that the Justices sentenced this boy to a reformatory school for six years. The case has been noted; and I shall take steps to insure that the statutory period of detention is not exceeded.

asked whether, if the sentence was in excess of the jurisdiction of the magistrates, it did not fall to the ground?

said, that involved a point of law on which he would offer no opinion. He would consider whether the objection to the sentence was one which affected its validity.

asked Mr. Attorney General, In what case it has been laid down by the High Court of Justice, or by some Judge of that Court, not as an obiter dictum, but as matter essential to or necessarily involved in the decision, that there is no public right of meeting in Trafalgar Square?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to remind him that it was ruled directly by Mr. Justice Charles, in his summing up to the jury in the case of "The Queen against Graham and Burns," that there was no public right of meeting in Trafalgar Square; and if he will consult the judgment of Mr. Justice Wills in the recent case of "Ex parte Lewis v. Vaughan" (4 The Times Law Reports, 649) he will find the same view of the law again enunciated.

asked, whether it was not the fact that the conviction at the Old Bailey against Cunninghame Graham and others proceeded on the ground not that the meeting was illegal by reason of its being held in Trafalgar Square, but because it was calculated to inspire terror; and whether that ground would not be equally good ground for pronouncing any meeting illegal wherever held?

said, he did not think that the hon. and learned Member for Hackney could possibly have forgotten that Mr. Justice Charles ruled in the most direct manner, and told the jury, that there was no right of public meeting in any public place in the Metropolis other than those set apart under the Parks Act, and that Trafalgar Square was a public place, and that the character of the meeting had nothing to do with the alleged right of meeting in Trafalgar Square.

said, that the Attorney General had misapprehended his Question, which was whether it was necessary from the decision in the case tried at the Old Bailey to pronounce conclusively on the question whether or not there was a right of public meeting in Trafalgar Square? He would ask him whether the verdict was not based upon the fact that the meeting was illegal because it was held under circumstances calculated to inspire terror; and whether it did not necessarily follow that any expression of the kind suggested, used by Mr. Justice-Charles, was a mere obiter dictum?

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was confusing two matters. He (Sir Richard Webster) was not dealing with the particular question which was left to the jury as to that part of the case dependent upon the character of the meeting. It was necessary for the Judge to direct the jury upon the law; and in the course of his summing up Mr. Justice Charles distinctly ruled to the jury in the way he had described. He (Sir Richard Webster) entirely denied that the enunciation of the law by a Judge in directing a jury was a mere obiter dictum.

inquired, whether it was not the fact that in the case of "Saunders v. Warren and others" it was sought to raise the point for the opinion of the Superior Court whether it was illegal to hold peaceable and orderly meetings in Tralalgar Square; and whether Her Majesty's Government did not by their defence raise the point that the action was not brought within the statutory period of three months, and therefore the question could not be decided?

said, that if any such Question were put to him he must ask for Notice, because it did not in any way arise out of the Question which he had answered. He was somewhat surprised that his hon. and learned Friend, who himself was an ex-Law Officer of the Crown, should have thought fit to refer to advice given to the Government, as to which he knew perfectly well that the Attorney General's mouth was closed.

said, he could not admit that where the matter was public his hon. and learned Friend had a right to point out that he had given no Notice of this Question; but, in fact, he had had no intention of asking the Question until he came down to the House, and was informed that it was a very serious matter affecting the peace of the community.

Move the Adjournment.

wished to know whether it was the case that Sir Charles Warren had issued another Proclamation; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department could state the terms?

said, that Sir Charles Warren had issued no fresh Proclamation that he was aware of.

asked the Attorney General in what Act of Parliament the distinct right of public meeting in the Parks or open spaces in London was laid down; and whether a Proclamation prohibiting a public meeting in London would make it illegal in the absence of any other reason?

said, he must have Notice of that Question.

could not understand that the right hon. Gentleman should say that Sir Charles Warren had issued no fresh Proclamation. There was one on all the walls.

I am not aware of any.

It is a reissue of an old Proclamation.

inquired, whether the Attorney General's attention had been directed to the judgment of Mr. Justice Wills, wherein he said he abstained from pronouncing judgment under the circumstances as to the right of holding public meetings in Trafalgar Square?

asked for Notice of the Question.

said, he would put the Question on the Paper; but it would be too late to stop the meeting already announced.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, What provision the Government propose to make for the expenses of the Commission to be established in pursuance of the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill; what for the expenses in connection with proceedings before it; and, what provision they propose to make for the discharge of the ordinary judicial duties of the Judges included in the Commission?

Provision will be made for the expenses of the Royal Commission, as in the case of all other Commissions; and a similar answer will apply if necessity should arise for making provision for the discharge of the ordinary duties of the Judges.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my Question?

My answer covers the second paragraph of the hon. Member's Question.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the Government intend to make provision for the expenses of persons, and of counsel for persons, who are summoned to appear before the Commission; and whether it is the intention that three of the Judges shall be withdrawn from their ordinary duties?

It is very inconvenient to answer Questions of this kind without Notice; but I have no hesitation in saying that there is no intention on the part of the Government to provide for the expenses of counsel. The same course will be followed in regard to this as to all ordinary Commissions.

I wish, Sir——

Order, order!

The right hon. Gentleman has omitted to reply to part of my Question. I asked him whether it is intended to withdraw three Judges for the purpose of this Commission?

I think I can hardly be expected to answer a Question of that character without Notice; but I think my answer to the hon. Member for East Donegal sufficiently explained the course intended to be followed. If it be necessary, provision will be made for the discharge of the ordinary official duties of the Judges to be employed on this Commission, in the same way as in the case of any other Royal Commission.

Well, will there be a Supplementary Estimate?

No, Sir.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any correspondence has passed between the proprietor or editor of The Times and Her Majesty's Government with reference to the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill; and, if so, whether there would be any objection to lay such documents upon the Table of the House?

There are no documents of the kind to which the hon. Member refers.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether any written or oral communication has passed between any Member of the Government, or any person acting on behalf of the Government, and any person acting on behalf of The Times?

I decline to answer any such Question.

I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which I have given him private Notice—namely, whether it is true, as reported, that Dr. Ridley, the medical officer of Tullamore Prison, who was in charge of the late Mr. John Mandeville, has committed suicide; if so, whether he has received the particulars, and whether any reason for it is officially assigned?

I am sorry to say that the news is true. I have received telegraphic information to that effect. With regard to the reason of the act, I shall abstain from any conjecture, as I believe a Coroner's inquest will be held to-morrow?

I would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman gave any direction as to the attendance or the evidence of Dr. Ridley at the inquest on Mr. Mandeville?

said, he had given no directions.

Then I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the Government will agree to appoint a Special Commission to inquire as to the moral or legal responsibility of the Chief Secretary in this matter?

said, he was aware that there had recently been two deaths in Colney Hatch Asylum; and he would do his best to see that any defects there might be in the attendants were remedied.

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

I overruled the objection taken by the hon. Member, because when an hon. Member proposes to withdraw a Bill it is a purely formal Motion, to which I did not think an objection could hold good.

Sir, I desire, with the leave of the House, to address a Question to the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare) upon a matter which affects the Privileges of the House. I wish to ask him whether he admits or will state that he is the author of a letter which appears in The Star—an evening newspaper published in the Metropolis—this afternoon, headed "Mr. Conybeare and the Speaker?"

If the noble Lord will be kind enough to read the letter I shall be able to answer the Question.

I will read the letter if the hon. Member likes to trifle with a matter of this grave importance. It is necessary for the House to know whether the hon. Gentleman is the author of the letter before the House can formally deal with the matter as a matter of Breach of Privilege. I may say generally that the letter is headed "Mr. Conybeare and the Speaker." It is addressed to the editor of The Star, and it alludes to the "scandalous proceedings" which marked the second reading of the Bann Drainage Bill; it contains expressions of opinion by the hon. Member on the conduct of Mr. Speaker, and gives reasons for the hon. Member having committed himself to that opinion and to the results which followed, and the letter purports to be signed by the hon. Member. I have now to ask the hon. Member in his place whether the letter was written by him? [Cries of "Read!"]

I have only to reply that until the noble Lord reads the letter in question I can make no answer to his Question.

Mr. Speaker, in consequence of the conduct of the hon. Member, I must ask you a Question upon a point of Order—namely, whether it would be in Order for me to move that the Clerk at the Table should read the letter, or whether it would be more in Order that I should read it myself?

If the noble Lord wishes to bring the subject before the House as a matter of Breach of Privilege, it will be right that the letter should be read by the Clerk at the Table.

Then, Sir, I desire to bring before the House, as a matter of Breach of Privilege, a letter which purports to have been written by the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall, dated the 19th of July, and addressed to the editor of The Star, and I ask that the Clerk at the Table should read the letter.

Mr. Speaker, the letter having been read, I have now to ask the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall whether he wrote that letter?

Yes, Sir; I did.

Mr. Speaker, it now becomes my duty—and I do not think after what the House has heard that anyone will be surprised at my action—to submit a Motion to the House. It is certainly not a pleasant matter—it is certainly one in which I take no delight whatever. Hon. Members opposite know well that I have never willingly taken part in personal matters. But the matter which has been placed before the House by the reading of the letter by the Clerk at the Table seems to me to transcend mere personalities, and to affect the honour and the dignity of the proceedings of the House of Commons itself. I am sure we had all hoped, and had every reason to hope, that the many painful scenes which in recent years have agitated this House had altogether been relegated to the past, and that a new era of Parliamentary manners and Parliamentary life had begun among us. Nothing, Sir, was more calculated to justify such an opinion by Members of this House than the conduct of hon. Members opposite from Ireland, who I do not hesitate to say in the most public manner have almost invariably during this Session shown a most remarkable restraint on temper and on expression of speech, and who have seemed to set before themselves the one object of abiding by the Rules of the House of Commons and of contributing to the dignity and the reputation of this Assembly. Our hopes, as far as hon. Members from Ireland were concerned, have been fully justified. But I grieve to say that it has been left to a Member for an English constituency—an hon. Member who calls himself a Radical, and who claims par excellence to represent the people—to do his very best by his course of conduct night after night, day after day, culminating——[Cries of "Order!"]

I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether, on a question of Privilege—an urgent matter relating to a specific Breach of Privilege—the noble Lord is entitled to make such allegations against the hon. Member for Camborne as that the hon. Member has misconducted himself night after night, day after day?

The noble Lord is bound to confine himself to the subject-matter of the letter.

I was going to say that the course of conduct of the hon. Member to which I allude culminated in the letter which has been read, and which I am now going to comment upon, with the leave of the House. I am sure I regret—and I am sure the whole House, without distinction of Party, rogrets—that it has been an English Member who has laid himself open to the accusation of doing his best, either by his letter or by his previous conduct, to bring the English House of Commons into thorough disrepute and discredit with the people. It is not necessary for me, in the presence of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and especially in that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), whose experience of Parliament far surpasses that of any other Member—to insist upon the necessity of guarding the honour and the reputation of the House of Commons, which is inseparably connected with the honour and the reputation of the Speaker. Whatever is calculated to bring the Speaker of the House of Commons into public discredit and disrepute tends to reflect discredit and disrepute on the House of Commons; and more than that, if the House of Commons does not protect and support its Speaker when he is made the object of malevolent, venomous, and libellous attacks, there is no other power in the country that can exercise that duty. It is for these reasons, Sir, that I call upon the House of Commons to take action with regard to this letter. I would more especially draw the attention of the House to certain passages of grave significance in the letter read by the Clerk at the Table. I omit the first portion of the letter, which appears to me to express a perfectly legitimate political opinion, although it is one which I do not share myself, and which appears to be stated in rather exaggerated language. But I come to the sentence which begins as follows:—

"I had spoken but a quarter of an hour when one of the Tory rank and file moved the closure, and the Speaker"—

I draw the attention of the House to this expression—

"who is supposed to exercise his discretion impartially for the protection of the minority, at once put the Question."

I draw the attention of the House to the insinuation conveyed in the word "supposed," which insinuation, I am sure, the hon. Member for the Camborne Division does not deny. The letter proceeds—

"Such a proceeding I stated later on was nothing short of a public scandal."

Now, Sir, has it really come to this—that the Speaker of the House of Commons, exercising the highest duties that can devolve upon any Member of the House—most responsible and most anxious duties—exercising them with the general confidence and approval of both sides of the House, is to be told, not by a mere individual member of the public, but by a Member of the House itself, that his conduct with regard to a particular matter amounted to nothing less than a public scandal? [Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear!] I appeal confidently to hon. Members on that point. They will feel that such an expression, even if it stood by itself, would deserve the reproof of the House; but I go on to read another passage—

"I withdrew the expression"—

[Mr. CONYBEARE: Hear, hear!]—says the hon. Member in his letter—

"when called upon to do so. I have not the slightest doubt but that every Radical outside the House (as are most of those within it) is of the same opinion."

I am perfectly confident that the hon. Member, in making that statement, has altogether mis-stated and misrepresented the Radical Party; and I am perfectly certain that there are a great many Members of the Radical Party who would with one voice repudiate the accusation of the hon. Member that the conduct of the Speaker has been a public scandal. But I pass on—

"The Government says you shall not debate the matter, and Mr. Speaker backs them up."

Again, Sir, another insinuation of a most malevolent and malignant character, worse even than the insinuation to which I drew the attention of the House a few moments ago; because, after all, looking at the matter from the common-sense point of view, what is the charge against the Speaker? The charge is that the Speaker is in collusion with the Government in exercising the high duties of the Chair in a partial and partizan spirit. Then the hon. Member writes what seems to be the most deliberate and outrageous insult which anyone could offer to the House of Commons—

"I hope every elector in the Speaker's constituency will be careful to mark his conduct."

[Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear!] I note the spirit of that remark, and the House will appreciate that spirit. In a different spirit, and in a converse sense, I express the same hope. I hope not only every elector in the City of Warwick, but every elector in the United Kingdom, will mark Mr. Speaker's conduct. I have no doubt that in this opinion I shall be supported by an overwhelming majority in this House. Mr. Speaker's conduct in the Chair deserves the approval of the people of England. I pass on from that matter. I have brought before the House two grave insinuations—what I characterize as a deliberate insult to the Speaker. I come now to the most grave paragraph of all in the letter; and here, again, I have more confidence than I had before of carrying the House with me—

"As I may be blamed"—

says the hon. Member—

"for withdrawing my description of this proceeding, I may add that I did it deliberately for the following reasons:—(1) The withdrawal of an unparliamentary expression does not do away with the effect produced by using it. Nor does it imply alteration of a deliberately expressed opinion. It remains on record."

I appeal to the House, and to the hon. Member himself. Could anything be conceived more utterly at variance with every sentiment of gentlemanly honour and conduct, than that an hon. Member of this House, occupying the high position of Member of Parliament, should, whenever he uses un-Parliamentary language, in what may be the heat of the moment, when called upon by the Chair to withdraw the expression as a man of honour, as a man of truth, withdraw such an expression, and write to the newspapers next day to say that his withdrawal was a sham and empty formality, that his expression of opinion remains unaltered as if he had not as a man of truth and honour withdrawn it? Now I ask the House is that their idea, is it the idea of any section of this House, of the standard of Parliamentary honour? Are Parliamentary honour and Parliamentary truth to be placed lower than truth and honour outside these walls? To what a revolting and odious depth we have descended, if the House implies by taking no notice of the conduct of the hon. Member, that the withdrawal of libellous and un-Parliamentary terms is a mere formality uttered by an hon. Member to avoid consequences which may be inconvenient to himself, but which may be fully repudiated in another place where apparently there is great safety just as if the withdrawal had not taken place. I am sure there is no Member of this House who will defend—at any rate in calm moments—such a revolting and such an atrocious statement as the passage I have just read. The hon. Member goes on to say in the letter—

"Suspension from the House would do no good to anyone except by pleasing the Tory Government, who would be delighted to be rid of a very uncomfortable thorn in their side."

The hon. Member appears to me to have strange ideas about truth and honour; but he has far stranger ideas——

I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether an hon. Member can say of another hon. Member of this House that he has strange ideas of truth and honour?

I do not see any cause to interfere. The noble Lord is bringing forward a distinct charge against the hon. Member for the Camborne Division.

But, without doubt, the hon. Member has far stranger ideas as regards his own Parliamentary dignity. If the Tory Government possessed dictatorial powers they could get rid of any uncomfortable thorns they might choose—there, there, and there (pointing alternately to the Front Opposition Bench, the Benches behind, and the Benches below the Gangway). The last person, however, who would dawn on the mind of the most benighted Tory Minister as being an uncomfortable thorn would be the hon. Member for the Camborne Division himself. But, passing away from that most egotistical and vain expression, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the hon. Member avows that he withdrew—with the approval of the House—what I characterize as a libellous and outrageous charge on the Speaker, not because he did not know that it was so libellous and outrageous, but because it might for the moment involve the suspension of himself from the Sitting of the House. Now, Sir, it is quite unnecessary to read more of the substance and gist of the letter. I doubt whether in all Parliamentary history a more painful, a more grievous departure from Parliamentary usage has ever been brought to the notice of the House and the public. If the House of Commons is to pass by this charge, the honour and the reputation of the Chair will become a thing of the past; and the dignity, the decency, and the honour of debate will be a vain expression. Not only can the House of Commons not pass this charge by, but I respectfully submit that it is the duty of the House to take the severest notice of it. That being so, I submit to the House a Resolution upon the subject.

I think that the House is under very great obligation to the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington [Cries of "Order!"]

The usual course under the circumstances is for the hon. Member who is charged to make any statement he wishes to make, and then to withdraw. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall wishes to say anything he is entitled to speak now. Has the hon. Member anything to say?

I have only one thing to say, and that is that, in my opinion, with regard to what happened last night with reference to the noble Lord's own Bill, it would have been more decent if he had left this matter to be brought up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin).

The hon. Gentleman will withdraw from the House pending the discussion.

thereupon withdrew.

I think that the House is under a very great obligation to the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, first of all, for the very neat sermon he has preached to us on the question of truthfulness and good manners. I also think that we are under a great obligation to the noble Lord for drawing the attention of the House and of the country to the proceedings which occurred last night. I beg to say that, so far as my opinion goes, the vote which will be taken on this question will not really decide it, but that the country outside must give a final judgment on a question of this sort. I remember very well that a discussion took place with regard to the New Rules of Procedure, when it was constantly impressed upon the House that the discretion ought not to be left to Mr. Speaker as to whether or not he should put the Question that the closure should come into operation. But the Government of the day insisted that the discretion should be left to Mr. Speaker, and that Mr. Speaker should decide whether a question had been fully debated or not. The noble Lord, in the Resolution which he has placed before us, has stated that the Speaker has been libelled. Now I think, and I state candidly, that in my opinion the Speaker has not been libelled. I do not mean to use any strong language, but I contend that the question on which the closure was carried on the previous night had not been properly debated; and I say more, that if Mr. Speaker had fully carried out the terms of the Resolution which gave him power to put the closure he would have refused to put the Motion to the House. We have not, perhaps, technically speaking, so high an authority as the Speaker; but the Chairman of Committees, who is looked upon as an exceedingly able and efficient Chairman of Ways and Means, has repeatedly refused to put Motions in favour of the closure when, in his opinion, the question has not been properly debated. I think that one or two things must be done in the future—either the Speaker must use his judgment as to whether or not a question has been properly debated before putting the closure, or else the Rule now in existence must be changed.

I think, perhaps, under the circumstances, the House will expect me to say a few words. I am sure I wish to speak without any heat, and I do not wish to import any kind of passion into the controversy which has arisen. The circumstances are these. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Camborne Division rose, I think, at about 20 or 25 minutes to 12 o'clock—[An hon. MEMBER: Twenty minutes.]—to move an Amendment on the Bann Drainage Bill. About five minutes to 12 o'clock an hon. Gentleman representing an Irish constituency on the Opposition side of the House (Mr. Macartney) rose to move the closure. [Mr. BIGGAR: No, no! and cries of "Order!"] I refused to put that Motion, because I was aware that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Camborne Division had not moved his Amendment, and that there remained five or six minutes at least before 12 o'clock in which he might move it. Twelve o'clock came, and, in accordance with the Rules of the House for the ordinary conduct of Business, the closure was moved. I accepted that Motion. I am not bound to state the reason, but I think it due to the House to do so. The reason I accepted it was that I understood that no Irish Member wished to speak nor had any objection to the Bill, but that if they had any objection full opportunity would be given on a subsequent stage to raise any objection they might like to the first Bill—namely, the Bann Drainage Bill. Subsequently, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Camborne Division, alluding to what had taken place, and by implication, I presume, referring to my conduct, said that a gross public scandal had been the result. I said, considering the closure was the act of the House, and the House had passed the closure by a very large majority indeed, that that was a very improper expression for the hon. Gentleman to use, and that I must ask him to withdraw it. The hon. Member did not seem disposed to withdraw; and under the impression, which was confirmed by many hon. Members subsequently, that he did not withdraw, I named him to the House. Immediately after I did so, the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), among others, rose and said that the hon. Member for the Camborne Division intended to withdraw. I said, if that were so, I should most certainly take the word of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division without the slightest hesitation, and if he withdrew the expression the incident, so far as I was concerned, was at an end. Since I came down to the House the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington has shown me a letter and an article written in a paper which I have never seen, and about which I know nothing, and to the comments in which I am absolutely indifferent. I have nothing more to say. I thought I would give to the House a plain statement of exactly what passed, and I think I have done so without the least colouring. Of course, as to the matter now before the House, I have nothing to say. I leave it to the judgment of the whole House.

I wish to be permitted to confirm the statement you have made, sir, that the closure was moved on this side of the House. I got up at two minutes to 12 o'clock, and moved that the Question be now put; but you, Sir, refused to put it on that occasion; and, consequently, I waited until another hon. Member, whom I was not aware was about to make the Motion, moved it at the end of the proceedings. It has been stated that the Motion was made at the instigation of the Government; I am able to say that no intimation was conveyed to me by any Member of the Government, or by anybody sitting on that side of the House. All I did was to intimate to an hon. Gentleman who sits on this side of the House that I intended to move the closure. I do not suppose I should be allowed to go into the merits of the Bill then under discussion; but when I know that the poor suffering tenant farmers in my constituency—[Cries of "Order!"]—when I saw the Bill being talked out of the House, as it was last night, and remembered the suffering tenants, it was enough to make their Representatives boil over with rage.

I only wish to say a word in reference to the statement which has been made that no Irish Member wished to discuss the Bill. I was sitting next to the hon. Member for the Camborne Division last night, when the hon. Member rose to object to the second reading of the Bill. I myself intended to make a speech upon the Bill, but the reason why the hon. Member rose was because upon a previous stage of the Bill he had given Notice that he had some particular objections which he intended to urge on the second reading. That is, I believe, the reason why the hon. Member rose before any Irish Member. I can assure the House that it was my intention—and I believe it was also that of other Irish Members—to speak on the Bill. It had only been debated for 20 minutes, as you, Sir, have pointed out, when the closure was moved by an hon. Member representing a constituency in the North of Ireland, and before any Irish Member had an opportunity of expressing his opinion on the Bill, one way or the other. After a debate which lasted only 20 minutes, and before a single Irish Member had had an opportunity of speaking, the closure was put from the Chair and carried. That is all I have to say upon the matter. I only rose for the purpose of saying that if the closure had not been accepted Irish Members would have spoken, and a great many of them were disappointed because no opportunity was afforded to them when they found that the debate was so summarily stopped.

I venture respectfully to put it to the House that we are not now entering upon the consideration of the circumstances under which the closure was put last night, nor upon the consideration of the circumstances under which you, Sir, exercise the discretion vested in the Chair. If any hon. Member of the House is of opinion that you are failing in the discretion which you ought to exercise, there is a method by which the House can express an opinion upon the exercise of that discretion. What we are now called upon to do is to decide whether or not the hon. Member for the Camborne Division has grossly libelled you, Sir, in the Chair, and has offered in your person an insult to the House. I venture humbly to say that no matter what may be the opposition in this House, or what may be the Party feeling, or whatever the differences that may exist between us, we must preserve with the greatest possible jealousy and care the character, position, and independence of the Speaker. I have no desire to press hardly upon any Member of this House. I should desire to avoid everything like exaggeration or excess of language in a matter of this kind; but I venture humbly to represent to the House that no graver offence can be committed against the House than to say that the Speaker of this House has been guilty of an act which amounts to a public scandal—that he has backed up by his influence, and by the exercise of his discretion, the action of the Government, or of any Party in this House, and that when an hon. Member has deliberately withdrawn an un-Par- liamentary expression that it does not do away with the effect produced by it; nor does it imply an alteration of a de liberately expressed opinion; it remains on record. I certainly think there are very few Members indeed who would not be prepared to repudiate in the very strongest terms such expressions as those. I submit it would be impossible for any deliberative Assembly to conduct its proceedings with any claim to the respect of those whom they represent if a Member is permitted to with draw an expression at one moment, and then to put on record that that with drawal was simply intended to avoid the immediate results of using the expression in the first instance, and that it remains on record as against the high officer of the House, whom he had deliberately insulted, and whose authority he had despised. We must assert the independence of the Speaker in the Chair; we must maintain the ordinary decencies and Rules for the conduct of debate in this House; and it is on that account that I support the Resolution which has been moved by my noble Friend the Member for South Paddington.

I may respect fully remind the House that there is no occasion upon which we are more likely to be ourselves judged, and even judged severely, by the public out-of-doors than when we are under the impression that we are exclusively engaged in judging other people—that is to say, in judging one of our own Members. We have before us a Resolution judging one of our own number; and, as the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington has referred to me as having seen much of this House, I shall endeavour to state my own views in strict accordance with the Rule that you, Sir, have wisely laid down in your observations from the Chair. I shall endeavour to avoid all epithets of colour, for on an occasion of this kind declamation, rhetoric, and invective are wholly out of place, have no connection with the subject-matter, and can only tend to obscure and blind the judgment of the House in the per formance of a difficult duty. Sir, I am under the impression that the course of proceeding now taken is not quite the most usual or the most convenient. I may be wrong; but I mean to say that the question has come upon me, as it has come upon us all, by surprise, and it has been impossible to make those references in a moment which are absolutely necessary in order to justify confidence in assertions as to the proceedings and usages of this House. My impression is that the usual and, I think, the most convenient course in questions of this kind, which in their first aspects are Breaches of Privilege, has been to move a Motion to the effect that such and such words or proceedings are a Breach of the Privileges of this House. I think there is a great convenience in that method of proceeding. It presents the case in the way least connected with any consequences to follow, or with any kind of heat. I think our practice has been, when we have thought that a Breach of Privilege has been committed, to hear the Member upon the subject, and then, having before us his entire conduct, before any question of a penal character has been introduced, and having heard what the Member has to say, to proceed to deal further with the subject, and to award whatever punishment or reproof the House chooses, or to take whatever course, on the whole, it may think best. I venture, provisionally and respectfully, to make this suggestion as to the course that I think is most convenient, and which I believe has been the usual course in proceedings of this painful character. I now come to the substance of the question, which is entirely new to me—entirely new as regards the proceedings of last night, and new as regards the letter in The Star of to-day. But the letter which has appeared in The Star raises, in my opinion, a simple issue. I perceived with satisfaction that the right hon. Gentleman who has just stated that it is his intention to support this Motion has done so without temper, and in terms of an entirely judicial character; and I should strongly deprecate any deviation from a judicial tone on an occasion of this kind. I find, Sir, that as to the substance of the letter, it complains of a proceeding of the Speaker in administering that Rule of Closure upon which we had so much debate last year, and about which my Friends and I made so many disagreeable predictions. This is a complaint in regard to the action of the Speaker. I take it to be quite indis- putable that when an hon. Member is of opinion that the Speaker has erred in judgment, either in administering the Rule of Closure, or in any other part of his duty, it is in the power of the hon. Member, subject to very grave considerations of high Parliamentary prudence and expediency, if he thinks that the magnitude of the subject demands it, to call in question the conduct of the Speaker in a regular and formal manner. That I believe to be the absolutely established principle. The Speaker in the Chair wields enormous powers, but the whole of those powers are provisional, inasmuch as there is not one of them that cannot, either in a general or particular case, be brought under the review and judgment of the House. I agree that on an occasion of this kind the question is not where an hon. Member sits. The question now before the House is not whether the hon. Member is a Member of the Party termed the Radical Party, or the Party termed the Nationalist Party, or any other Party; all these matters have nothing to do with it, and I endeavour to look at it without reference to them. I shall endeavour to look at it, as I am positively bound to do, in cold blood, just as the question is presented to me. I admit that there is a Parliamentary and legitimate method, although a grave one—but I hope the time may never come when it shall be necessary to resort to it—by which the conduct of the Speaker may be called in question. We have, in the first place, every opportunity of appealing to you, Sir; and we have, in the second place, should the necessity arise, the power of appealing from you. While preferring those methods of procedure, and while we are bound, I think, by the highest obligations to confine ourselves to those sufficient and proper means of Parliamentary action, believing that the language of this Resolution might have been more chastened, although the form that has been given to it may not be the most expedient and convenient, and although differences of opinion may prevail as to the step to be immediately taken, yet I cannot, and I do not, deny that expressions of this kind used with respect to the Speaker in a public journal, or in any other way, are distinctly Breaches of the Privileges of this House, aimed at the dignity and the security of its proceedings; and although I am deeply grieved that a question affecting the dignity of the House should have arisen on an occasion when so many matters of the greatest public importance are before it, and when, as has been said by an hon. Member, it may be that a vote of this House will not bring an early close and settlement of the question—although I think there were many special considerations that might have suggested, and wisely suggested, a greater moderation in the proceedings of the House, yet, having this Motion before me, I cannot deny—on the contrary, I am bound to admit, and even assert—that these methods of proceeding with a view to censure the Chair are wholly incompatible with the Law and Practice of Parliament, and with the public interest; and, therefore, however reluctantly, I am compelled in the main to give my assent to a proposal the necessity for which I lament, and I must say some of the circumstances and incidents of which I very deeply deplore. I trust I may be allowd to finish as I began. I must say a word with reference to what fell from my hon. Friend behind me, that the proposal of the closure was made from this side of the House. I wonder from what side he means. I am obliged to make a slight protest against the assumption involved in the hon. Gentleman's speech that the sentiments of Gentlemen on this side of the House are generally to be inferred from a suggestion to which he had given the great weight of his personal authority. Passing from that subject, while I should be extremely glad if even now the form of procedure were altered, and we were called upon, in the first instance, to assert the Breach of Privilege, and then, by an ulterior step, to consider what measures we ought to take upon it—while I think it right very distinctly to assert that preference, yet I know that in a state of feeling such as prevails on these occasions to make substantive proposals for the purpose of giving effect to that view, and especially to make them from the particular position in the House in which I stand, might be, in all the circumstances, injurious. I, therefore, abandon the idea of moving against the Motion that has been now made. But I would respectfully suggest that a great improvement in the whole proceeding might be made if that method of action were adopted. If it be not, I cannot deny the main substance of the allegation that is made, and I shall reluctantly assent to the assertion which the House is called upon to make.

I should certainly regard it as a double proposition—first, that the letter which is before the House did constitute a libel; and, secondly, what the punishment shall be.

I really think that has been the usual practice, and it might be convenient, at any rate, to include in the proposition an assertion of the Privileges of the House.

With respect to the point of Order raised by the right hon. Gentleman, would it not be a view of the subject which might be legitimately held that Breaches of Privilege and Motions as to Breaches of Privileges apply more usually to action taken by some person or persons not connected with the House than to the conduct of its own Members? And that is why I deliberately refrained from putting it down as a matter of Breach of Privilege, seeing that the libel uttered by the hon. Member for the Camborne Division, if it be a libel, was uttered by a Member of the House of Commons, and therefore differs from Breaches of Privilege properly so called.

On the point of Order I should like, Sir, to ask whether in the Journals of the House there are not repeated records of matters by Members declared to be Breaches of Privilege, and whether the punitive action on these has been by separate Resolutions?

Holding the view just stated by the hon. Gentleman, I propose to regard this proposition as two distinct propositions, and to put to the House, first, that the letter in The Star is a gross libel upon the Speaker of the House of Commons, and deserves the severest condemnation of the House.

I think that many of us would assent to that proposition if, instead of the words "gross libel," the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) would substitute "Breach of Privilege" [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No, no!] Many of us were not here last night, but read what occurred in the newspapers. We may, or may not, in our own hearts have an opinion whether you, Sir, in fulfilling those high functions which you fulfil so ably were right in this particular instance. It is quite a different thing to entertain a personal opinion and to give expression to it. It would be far better if the noble Lord would agree to accept the words "Breach of Privilege," because that would be passed almost nemine contradicente. The noble Lord would then go on afterwards to move the second portion of the Resolution, which clearly raises the point whether it is such a Breach of Privilege as renders the person guilty of it liable to this very heavy penalty. I do not stand up here to defend, in its entirety, the conduct of my hon. Friend. I can perfectly understand that many hon. Members disapprove my hon. Friend's taste in raising this protest in The Star. But the noble Lord will, I think, see himself that there was a considerable vein of exaggeration in the expressions which he used, culminating in the proposal he has submitted to the House that the hon. Member should be expelled for the rest of the Session. If you, Sir, had named the hon. Member, he could only have been suspended for a week, for a second offence he would have been suspended for a fortnight, and for a third offence he would have been suspended for a month, and yet the noble Lord asks now that my hon. Friend should be suspended for the rest of the Session. In the same number of The Star there is an article by the editor couched in precisely as strong, if not stronger, terms than the letter. I think that many hon. Gentlemen do not know that, being Members of this House, they are not entitled to write in the newspapers upon your action, Sir, in precisely the same terms as if they were not Members of the House. I can, therefore, conceive that my hon. Friend was not aware that he was guilty of a Broach of Privilege. The gravamen of the charge is contained in this passage of the letter—

"(1.) The withdrawal of an un-Parliamentary expression does not do away with the effect produced by using it. Nor does it imply any alteration of a deliberately expressed opinion. It remains on record."

My hon. Friend has just sent me a letter in which he says that he has been considering the matter, and that, so far as Paragraph No. 1 is concerned, as it was open to a construction not, at the time he wrote it, intended by him, and sug- gested that he was ready to depart from his word, he withdraws it, and regrets the expression. [Laughter.] Generally, that is an expression of regret, and a withdrawal on the part of the hon. Member is not generally received with laughter in this House. The hon. Gentleman does regret that he used this expression, and he withdraws it. I would, therefore, ask the noble Lord whether, in view of the letter I have just read, and remembering how distasteful these proceedings are, he will not be content with the House declaring that this is a Breach of Privilege? Does the noble Lord agree to that? [Cries of "No, no!"] The noble Lord does not say so.

The matter is no longer in my hands, but in those of the House; but I do not concur in the hon. Member's views.

Then I presume that I am in Order in moving that, in lieu of the words "a gross libel on the Speaker and the House of Commons," there should be inserted, "a Breach of the Privileges of this House." I, therefore, move these words.

The hon. Member must leave out more words than those. The Question is, that the words "a gross libel on Mr. Speaker and the House of Commons," be left out, in order to insert the words "breach of the Privileges of this House."

I do not understand that my hon. Friend intended, Sir, to use words personally disrespectful to you. [Cries of "Oh!"] You were acting as the exponent of the views of the House, and I take it that it is rather a libel upon the House. I look upon it more as an expression of opinion in regard to the House than upon you.

I do not wonder that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) shrinks from defending the conduct of the hon. Member for the Cam- borne Division, nor do I think that the letter which the hon. Member has just sent into the House of Commons improves his position. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian pointed out that the usual course on occasions of this kind was for the Member inculpated to rise in his place and make a statement. The hon. Member for the Camborne Division had that opportunity, and the only opinion he expressed was that, on the whole, he was of opinion that the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington would have done much bettor if he had left this matter to be moved by myself. Why he made that statement I cannot conceive. I was not in the House yesterday; and I knew nothing about the letter in The Star until I came down to the House, and why or wherefore he should think it incumbent on me to have taken this course I am at a loss to conceive. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I warmly and cordially endorse the speech and action of the noble Lord upon this occasion. We have heard something from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian as to the advantage of an entire absence of invective on an occasion of this sort; and I am bound to say that I did not hear a word from my noble Friend which was at all stronger than the circumstances demanded, and I believe I express the general opinion of the House of Commons when I say, that for the action of the noble Lord on this occasion, which expresses the determination of the House as a whole to uphold the dignity and authority of the Chair, he is entitled to the thanks of the House and of all classes of people outside who value the honour of the House.

I only wish to say that as Irish Members can obtain no redress in this House for slanders uttered in it, or for libels written outside, I do not concern myself in the matter of the present Motion, but I will leave you to settle your disputes between you.

I must express my determination to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington declares this letter of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division to be a gross libel, with various other adjectives I did not quite catch. The noble Lord is very fond of adjectives, and he piled Pelion upon Ossa, and Olympus upon both, though he did not say in what sense the letter is to be called a libel. Is the letter to be called a libel in the sense that it is untrue? If that were the question before the House I should not be prepared to say that it is a libel at all. It was due to the hon. Member for the Camborne Division, with whose language I do not at all agree, for I think it is worthy of the strongest condemnation, to keep in mind the extraordinary provocation he received. It was the first time in this House that 20 minutes were considered sufficient for the second reading of a Bill. One unfinished speech was not, in my opinion, an adequate discussion of the measure. If the hon. Member for the Camborne Division had kept himself within the limits of Parliamentary usage it would scarcely have been possible for him to use language too strong in reference to these proceedings. Therefore, I entirely dissent from the punishment which the noble Lord proposes, and which is monstrously excessive and vindictive. The infliction of such a punishment will not redound to the credit of this House. I would remind the House that people out of doors do not pay so much attention as hon. Members do to the niceties of language. They look more to the substance of the transaction, and I greatly fear that the punishment proposed by the noble Lord will do great harm by giving in the country to the hon. Member for the Camborne Division an importance to which upon his own merits he would never attain.

I should have thought that the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) would have been the last man in this House to take the responsibility of the Motion now under consideration. Some hon. Members here who were acquainted with the noble Lord in his happier, and perhaps better, days when he did not occupy his present position, know that he did not hesitate to attack the Chairman of Committees who did not happen to belong to his own political Party. With regard to myself, I am responsible for what I do in this House, but for what I may do outside I invite my opponents to a Court of Law. I should have thought that the noble Lord, who is not devoid of generosity of character, would have withdrawn or modified his proposal. The Speaker has explained that he agreed to the closure last night because his impression was that no Irish Members desired to speak. Therefore, I may assume that the closure was misapplied, inasmuch as it is now known that several Irish Members did desire to speak. I had not the advantage of being present during the debate, but I am assured that 10 or 12 Irish Members were prepared to speak upon the question. [Cries of "No, no!"] I know that to express a doubt as to the veracity of an Irish Member is not considered even a breach of good manners. In spite of this interruption from the gentlemanly Party, I reiterate the statement that several Irish Members desired to take part in the debate. If I had been present I myself should have desired to take part in it; and I should have joined the hon. Member for the Camborne Division in strong and persistent hostility to the Bill. Then having regard to the fact that several Irish Members desired to speak on the Bill and your statement, Sir, that if you had known that any Irish Member desired to speak, you would not have allowed the closure to be put, the matter comes to this—that the closure was applied under a misapprehension. We are, therefore, entitled to complain of the Motion of the noble Lord, backed up as it was by a speech, the tone and temper of which were not suited to the gravity of the question we are discussing. The hon. Member for the Camborne Division wrote this letter under circumstances which ought to be an excuse for his action. I was glad, Sir, to hear from you that you did not regard the expressions used by the hon. Member as applying to you personally. Under the circumstances, I think the hon. Member has a right to complain of the Motion of the noble Lord. We, on this side of the House are proved to have been more than justified by this debate in taking up a hostile attitude against the Rule when it was under discussion last year. We pointed out that it would operate unfairly against you, Sir, and your Successors in the Chair; that as the act would be the act of the majority of the House it would be improper to en- tangle your personal character or official conduct in the debates of this House. I was, therefore, glad to hear, Sir, that you did not put the matter on any personal ground at all. We are now discussing, not the Speaker's ruling last night, but the words applied by the hon. Member for the Camborne Division to the act of the majority of the House. That being so, I shall be free to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton. I shall only vote for it, however, because I deem it the lesser evil of the two, for I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that the letter was a Breach of the Privileges of that House.

I think it tolerably clear that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian is right when he says we should be acting more in accordance with precedent in cases of Privilege by first of all affirming that the letter of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division (Mr. Convbeare) is a gross Breach of the Privileges of this House. The precedent nearest to the mark is the case of Mr. O'Connell on Feb. 26, 1838. Complaint was made of certain expressions in a speech of Mr. O'Connell at a public meeting as containing a charge of foul perjury against Members of this House in the discharge of their judicial duties on Election Committees. Mr. O'Connell was heard in his place, and averred that he had used the expressions complained of. He was first of all declared guilty of Breach of Privilege, and then by order of the House he was reprimanded in his place by the Speaker. That seems to be a precedent entirely in point. Most of us on this side of the House are, and certainly I myself am, inclined to vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Hear, hear!] I have great doubt as to the words "gross Breach of Privilege." Last year when the hon. Member for the Camborne Division made a speech, or wrote a letter, in which some reflection was cast upon your conduct in the Chair, I thought it was my duty to assure you of my perfect conviction, and of the conviction of all of us, that it was your constant desire to be fair and impartial in presiding over this House. I should not, therefore, be suspected, in supporting the Amendment, of any desire to extenuate the gravity of the offence of which the hon. Member for the Camborne Division has been guilty in writing this letter. Enough has been said as to the offensive details of that letter, but we must view it as you, Sir, have invited us to view it, as a Breach of the Privileges of this House rather than as a mere personal attack upon yourself which you would be able to disregard. [Cries of "No, no!"] That, at least, is my view. What the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has just said is most true, that this extremely painful incident is due to the disregard of the predictions which we made last year as to the almost inevitable effect of this Rule in bringing the Chair into collision with Members of the House. What we then said of the Rule is amply justified. I only want to say further, that I am glad we can dissociate the declaration that this letter is a gross Breach of the Privileges of this House from any view as to what took place last night, for I should be very sorry to give any vote which would imply that the stoppage of the Debate last night was anything but a very gross abuse of the Rules. On that question it is not my business now to enter. I have informed the House what I think of the events of last night, and I have stated with equal frankness my opinion of the letter of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division. I shall vote, therefore for the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere), reserving to myself the right of voting whichever way I may think best on any subsequent Resolution that may be moved.

Sir, I have listened with attention to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley). He has referred, unfortunately, as I think, to the incidents which preceded the offence of which the House is now taking cognizance. I say deliberately that we have nothing whatever to do with those incidents. What we have to deal with is that which I venture to say the whole House must realize, and which the right hon. Gentleman himself did not deny, to be a libel upon the character and conduct of the Speaker of the House. It is because I believe it is a libel upon the conduct of the Speaker that I cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have lost sight of the fact that partiality is attributed to the Speaker in this statement, and that an object and purpose are attributed to him in the action which he took, and that he is warned that the constituency which he represents in this House will have its eyes upon him with regard to his conduct, and that the letter winds up with an ostentatious statement—I regret to be obliged to use that observation—that the withdrawal was effected for the purpose for which it was necessary, but that it was insincere and unreal, and that the words remained on record. The observations which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) are those which fairly and properly represent the almost unanimous feeling of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of this House. We must regard this as a serious Breach of the Privileges and a serious libel against the House, against the Speaker, and against the order and discipline of the House. It is on that account, and not because we have any desire to press hardly on the hon. Member, and because I feel that the good order of the House and the conduct of hon. Members in relation to you, Sir, and in relation to the House, are dear and necessary for the maintenance of the Privileges of this House, that I shall vote for the original Motion of my noble Friend the Member for South Paddington and against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton.

Sir, I do not want to stand for more than a minute between this House and a Division; but I should like to point out that the part of the letter to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred supplies a conclusive reason against accepting the Motion of the noble Lord as against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton. The right hon. Gentleman said that the most serious part of the letter, and I agree with him, was that which contained the ostentatious statement that the withdrawal by the hon. Member for the Camborne Division was an insincere withdrawal. The hon. Member declares that—

"The withdrawal of an un-Parliamentary expression does not do away with the effect produced by using it, nor does it imply any alteration of a deliberate expressed opinion, but it remains on record."

And he says that while his tongue was sworn his mind remained unsworn. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that these are condemnable words, and I ask you, Sir, whether they are a libel upon you. It is ridiculous to say so, and, from that point of view, the Motion of the noble Lord is utterly inadequate to meet this case. It is not wide enough, and it is because the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton is more adequate that I shall vote with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle against the Motion of the noble Lord.

Sir, I intend to support my hon. Colleague in the Amendment he has moved. I know of no more difficult position in which this House is placed than when it is judging a Member for his conduct, and I know how little the House exercises the judicial faculty when it is delivering any such judgment. I should not like to give a silent vote on this question, for I should not like to imply by my silence that I would be any party, directly or indirectly, to the implication of unfairness on the Chair made in the version of this letter. I vote for its condemnation as a gross Breach of the Privileges of the House, because that is a course which has been pursued in similar cases. I regret that the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, in his position as public prosecutor for the House, did not maintain the dignity which ought to characterize the position he assumes, but thought fit to jest at the hon. Member for the Camborne Division. Surely it was no matter for jesting at any rate. The noble Lord who jested with it seemed to him to lose his sense of the gravity of the charges he was making when he turned aside into that jocular mode of expression. I regard the words spoken here or elsewhere as things which should be adhered to always, and I think that the letter which has been read to the House from the Table is open to the severest condemnation if from that point of view alone. I shall support my Colleague in the Amendment he has moved, desiring to remind the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) that when the debate on the Closure Rule was taking place, I pointed out, as Hansard will show, that within a brief space we should be discussing the fairness or unfairness of the Speaker or Chairman of Committees, and that that would be degrading the authority of the Chair, lessening its influence and laying it open to outside popular verdict, as well as to the kind of thing which we have unfortunately before us to-day. I said then, and I think now, that the closure is a weapon which every Chamber should have at hand, but that it should exercise it on its own responsibility and not shift on to its chief magistrate the odium which the majority is afraid to face.

Sir; I cannot give a silent vote on this question, because there is something which I think has not yet been said, and I think it is my duty to say it very briefly. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) has told us, as only he can, under what extraordinary circumstances and under what solemn forms alone we should be justified in calling in question the conduct of the Chair; but I contend that in refusing the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton, the Leader of the House is really insisting upon bringing the conduct of the Chair in question. We are dealing, as I take it, with the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall, and not with the conduct of the Chair in the least degree. We, on this side of the House, do not think occasion has yet arisen for calling in question the conduct of the Chair. We bow in respect to it, we accept the decision of the Chair, and we decline to enter into any vote which would assume that the conduct of the Chair is to be called into question. If the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House persists in resisting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton, he insists on raising the question of the conduct of the Chair, and I, for one, shall vote with the hon. Member. I make an appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite on this ground that it is most desirable that the decision arrived at should be as unanimous as possible. We have heard speeches from all parts of the House, which show that all are ready to condemn the action and the letter of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division as a gross Breach of the Privileges of this House. Well, something will be gained if we come to an unanimous decision upon that point. As to anything further it can be discussed afterwards, but for the honour of the House do let us be unanimous in our decision.

Sir, I claim the privilege of saying a few words on this question. I wish to express to the noble Lord my deep sense of the obligation under which I lie to him for having brought this question before the House. We cannot continue under the Closure Rule without some modification of it, and I wish, Mr. Speaker, with due deference to your ruling, to explain to the House why I rise to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton. The other night the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department on a similar occasion deliberately charged me with inciting to riot, and holding an unlawful assembly, and the closure was put on. [Cries of "Order!"]

Sir, I wish to explain why I shall not vote in this Division at all. In the first place, hon. Members who were here last night must be aware of the fact that considerable heat was shown at or about the time when the question was put. As a Member of this House, who does not possess the best temper, I may be allowed to say a word in favour of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare), who sat close by me. None of us were in a good temper, and I would ask the House to remember that a very short time must have elapsed between what occurred in the House and the writing of this letter. There is no doubt, as you have so ably shown the House to-night, that had you known that a number of us were going to speak on the Bill in question, the closure would not have been put. I would certainly ask the House to remember the feelings and state of mind of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division at that time. He thought himself seriously aggrieved, and certainly I, for one, thought he was extremely aggrieved. As a man, perhaps, subject to fits of temper, I would ask any Member, whether Liberal or Tory, to put himself in the place of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division at the time he wrote that letter; I would ask them not to go into the Lobby without having reflected upon the position in which the hon. Member was placed, and without paying attention to the wise words which have fallen from the Chair in this matter. I cannot vote either for or against this Motion; and I would implore hon. Members who have not reflected on the circumstances either to follow my example, or else to consider, at any rate, that this offence is not so very flagrant, in consequence of the peculiar circumstances attending it.

Sir, I entirely agree with what has fallen from the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) as to the extreme desirability of the decision of the House being nearly, if not quite, unanimous. It appears to me that there is some risk that in the Division that is going to take place, some of us may be voting under a certain amount of misapprehension, or, at any rate, that we who take part in the Division shall not all of us be voting on exactly the same issue. I do not understand, from the observations which fell from my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), that he took any exception to the words of the Resolution that the letter which was read was a gross libel on Mr. Speaker; but I understand from some of the speeches which have been made below the Gangway that exception has been taken to those words. The position of my right hon. Friend was, that in this case it was desirable, if possible, to follow as strictly and nearly as may be precedent, and that in all similar cases the preliminary stage in proceedings of this kind had been to declare the proceedings in question to be a gross Breach of the Privileges of the House. I understand my right hon. Friend to say that the House ought to follow precedent, and that he commits himself to that declaration. I do not know whether it would be possible, in a subsequent Resolution, to introduce a declaration that the letter in question is a libel on the Speaker; but I gather, from what has fallen from my right hon. Friend, that he would not object to the use of those words if they could be inserted in a subsequent Resolution, and that the House should first proceed to assert that there has been a gross Breach of the Privileges.

I think it would be very convenient to the House that we should have the opinion of the Government upon the suggestion just made by my noble Friend the Member for the Rossendale Division of Lancashire (the Marquess of Hartington). May I once more lay that suggestion before the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith)? As I understand there is practically an unanimous opinion in the House that the letter of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare) is a gross Breach of the Privileges of the House. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, practically the unanimous opinion. It appears to me that it would be most important for the dignity of the House, and for its future proceedings that we should have what would be practically an unanimous decision upon that point. Then, Sir, that having been established, it appears to me that it would be open to any hon. Member to propose, as a second Resolution, that inasmuch as the hon. Member for the Camborne Division has committed a gross Breach of the Privileges of this House, and has uttered a libel against the Speaker of the House, that a certain punishment should follow. I understand that if such a Resolution were put before the House as a second Resolution my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian would offer no opposition to it.

I wish to point out to the House that there is some mistake as to the precedents which might be applicable in this case. There is a precedent in the year 1858, where the assertion was not made in the first instance that it was a Breach of the Privileges of the House. The Resolution I am referring to began in these words—

"Resolved, That the said article is a false and scandalous libel upon the Chairman and other Members of the Committee."

And proceeded—

"That Washington Willis, the proprietor and publisher of the said newspaper, in publishing the said article, has been guilty of a Breach of the Privileges of the House."—(3 Hansard, [150] 1068.)

The House will observe that the declaration of libel preceded any other action.

I take the liberty of saying that in my state- ment on this subject I referred only to the precedents of the last six years. I did not go back to the precedents in older times.

But this is a precedent of 1858.

May I submit to the House two or three words to show as to why I hope that the majority of the House will support the original Resolution. Of course, it was my object in drawing this Motion to make it clear that the Speaker of the House had been cruelly libelled by the hon. Member for Camborne. This is what I wanted the House to assert—that the statements of the hon. Member were a gross libel. That is the point which I wish, if possible, to impress on the public mind. And I point out that the words suggested by the hon. Member opposite, "gross Breach of the Privileges of the House of Commons" are, to my mind, quite unnecessary, for there can be no greater Breach of the Privileges of the House of Commons than grossly and falsely to libel the Speaker.

The precedent quoted by the right hon. Gentleman is not quite on all fours with the present case, because Mr. Washington Wilks was not a Member of the House.

I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the distinction makes the case all the stronger. It is because we desire to put the libel in the forefront, in order to mark the sense of the House on the question, that the Government have decided to support the Resolution of the noble Lord.