believe that by the careful preparation of measures, their early introduction, the judicious distribution of Business between the two Houses, and the order and method with which measures are conducted, the Government can contribute in an essential degree to the easy and convenient conduct of Business. They trust the efforts of the Government would be seconded by those on of independent Members, and that a general But is there at present a judicious five years, as anyone may see who will take the trouble of examining the Proceedings of the House and Hansard's Debates. No man values more than I do the individual rights of independent Members. It has been my fate to be and the right hon. Gentleman the Chanan independent Member for many years, cellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ought to have some sympathy with me, for when I was Whipper-in to the Conservative or Protectionist Party, I was tried by a sort of court martial, with Lord Lyndhurst in the chair as President, and the late Lord Beaconsfield as my accuser, because I refused to "Whip" the House against Lord John Russell's Reform Bill of 1852. I expressed the opinion that when that noble Lord felt the necessity for proposing such a change that change was inevitable, and that the sooner it was made the better and more moderate it was likely to be. I have ventured to urge on the House that it must take cognizance of the conduct of individual Members and of small minorities, because, since the last Reform Act, the character of the House has greatly changed, and Obstruction has increased, in great measure owing, as I believe, to the rebellion in Ireland, for I can call it by no other name. There is your difficulty. You have no need to coerce large numbers; your difficulties have been created by small numbers; and upon the principle of the Common Law you should never punish large bodies when you can single out the principal offenders, and by making examples of them deter others who might be inclined to imitate their bad example. My belief is that if the Notice which stands in my name had been adopted in 1879, it is very probable that the hon. Member for the City of Cork and the other hon. Member who is in prison as a "suspect" would now be in their places in this House. But the House failed to check these hon. Members; the House placed no restriction upon their obstructive action, no restriction upon their disloyal attempts to incapacitate the House. Hence the present difficulty. I own that I have been disappointed in the conduct of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India. Evidence has been afforded in this House that the noble Marquess has urged upon his constituents the adoption of the cloture as a means of forcing on measures which he deems to be advantageous. The noble Marquess has been an advocate of the clôture from 1878, and before that. In 1880 I made the proposal which stands now in my name as a Notice upon the Order Book, and there was a great disposition on the part of the Conservative Members to adopt it. But what said the noble Marquess? Why, that he was astonished that any such proposal should ever be entertained. He said "It is the Government who are charged with guiding the course of Business, and of directing and controlling it in the House. It is the Government who are principally responsible for the conduct of that Business."-[3 Hansard, ccl. 1465.] There I agree with the noble Marquess. He then proceeded to say, with respect to the proposal of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, which in principle was the same as mine, though much feebler "But in the Resolution now before us, the House will observe that when the Speaker has named a Member, the matter is left to be decided by the majority of the House. Now, it appears to me that it is questionable whether there is any advantage whatever to be obtained from the proposed action of the House itself." -[Ibid. 1471-2.] that The noble Marquess therefore proposed your authority, Mr. Speaker, should be supreme without reference to the House-a position which no Speaker has ever occupied in this House. The noble Marquess further asked "Where, then, is the necessity for bringing in the action of the House at all?"-[Ibid. 1472.] Why, even Her Majesty's Ministers do not propose this at present. The noble Marquess continued— “I cannot but think that something of dignity is taken away from the character of the proceeding by requesting a vote of the majority of the House, and not leaving it nominally, as well as practically, in the hands of the Speaker himself."-[Ibid.] The noble Marquess thus proposed that you, Sir, should constantly exercise the totally exceptional authority by which, on an occasion of a great emergency, you terminated a debate; while you, Sir, have emphatically declared that you felt that what you did on that occasion was an operation which ought never to be repeated. What further said the noble Marquess? What reason did the noble Marquess assign? He said "Because the Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means was the only person who could cognizant of all that had taken place; and if it possibly, from the necessity of the case, be is the intention of the Government to strengthen their hands, I think that it could be more effectually done by placing the necessary power in their hands, and not by "-let the House mark this expression-"not by delegating it to the majority of the House."-[Ibid. 1473.] I could not understand the noble Marquess in the Committee of 1878; but when he thus spoke in 1880, I understood him perfectly. Then the noble Marquess went on to say "I quite agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer "-the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon-" that you cannot at all but when considering this question the House defend the adoption of the clôture in this House; will do well to remember that this is a proceeding to which in time you will be forced to come, and that it is a proceeding which would undoubtedly be efficient for the purpose for which it would be intended."-[Ibid. 1476-7.] Then, further on, he added "We ought to bear in mind that we have in reserve a simpler and more effectual means of proceeding "—that is, the clôture.-[Ibid.] These, unfortunately, now seem to be the opinions entertained by the Government. They propose to place this House and its Business under an extraneous authority, for the authority of the the action of the House, is extraneous Speaker, if it be sole and distinct from to the House. I hope, Sir, that the House will excuse my having quoted so largely; but I should state that speech of the noble Marquess from which I have quoted was delivered in this House on the 26th of February, 1880, and that on the following day it was answered by the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Government. On the 27th of February, in the adjourned debate, the right hon. Gentleman said— "Reference has been made to the practice abroad of what is termed the clôture; but let us observe and bear in mind that, whatever the clôture may be as a means of saving the time of a deliberative Assembly, it is, I think-and so, I presume, Her Majesty's Government (the Government of Lord Beaconsfield) have thoughtinapplicable to the present discussion, because, inappropriate. The clôture is not the stoppage as a penal measure, it would surely be altogether of a particular Member who is supposed to have offended; it is the stoppage of the debate; and, therefore, to bring in the clôture for the purposes which this Resolution contemplates would be simply to enact that the House would punish itself, and the great interests with which it is charged, in consequence of the offence of a particular Member."-[3 Hansard, ccl. 1593.] [Fifth Night.] the difficulties which were proved before the Committee of 1878, but that is calculated to enable a majority arbitrarily to silence a minority. Again I say that if this measure-the clôture-be not used frequently it will be practically useless; while, if it be used frequently, it will change to the verge of destruction, if not actually destroy, the noble character which this House has borne for centuries as the greatest example of Representative Institutions among the nations of the world. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has told us that we are alarmists. If I am an alarmist I am not satisfied, as he knows, with merely expressing my alarm; and I am confident if you pass this measure, which I believe to be inconsistent with the character of the House of Commons, you may expect that those who have been the quiet Members of the House and quiet mem heard when they find that you no longer respect the characteristics of this House, which they believe to afford, at least, some of the surest foundations of their freedom. I cannot state the objections to the clôture in stronger or more eloquent terms than these, and I cannot conceive what the circumstances are, or what the pressure is, which has induced the Prime Minister to turn straight round on his deliberate opinion so clearly expressed only two years ago. I am afraid that we have an agency in the Government which is of a very arbitrary character that we have a Caucus in the Government itself. I believe, Sir, that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who is known in the town of Birmingham for a rather arbitrary disposition, though his great talents are acknowledged, has been the introducer not only of the Caucus, but of this proposal of the clôture. We know that right hon. Gentleman in Birmingham, and I will give the House a proof of what we think of him. At the last Election, what were the numbers polled for the three hon. Members for Bir-bers of society will make their voices mingham ? For the senior Member (Mr. Muntz) there were polled 22,969 votes; and for the President of the Board of Trade 19,544 votes, or 3,425 less than for the senior Member; whilst for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lan- SIR ROWLAND BLENNERHAScaster there were polled 22,079 votes, SETT said, it was not his original inor 2,535 more than for his right hon. tention to take any part in the debate; Colleague the President of the Board of but he wished, with the permission of Trade. That, I think, is strong inferen- the House, to say a few words in reply tial proof of opinion in Birmingham. to some statements made by opponents The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Prime Minister's Resolution. of the Board of Trade is very demo- But, first of all, a word with respect to cratic, but, at the same time, very arbi- the phraseology of the Amendment of trary-two characteristics which, though the hon. and learned Member for apparently inconsistent with each other, Brighton (Mr. Marriott), which reminded are often combined, as is well known to him of the old joke in Whately's Logiceveryone who, like myself, has visited "No food is better than potatoes," the United States; and it is my belief which was capable of two distinct meanthat this cloture, which in the year 1848 ings. One meaning was that they had was condemned by the distinguished better go without food than eat potaCommittee to which I have referred-toes, and the other that no species of the only Committee who ever considered the question fully-is, as that Committee declared, inapplicable to this House and will be dangerous if adopted. These, then, are the grounds of my opposition to the Resolution now before us. I consider that at present a direct attack is being made upon Parliamentary government. This House has in this Session been induced to attack the House of Lords for exercising its undoubted Privileges and performing its assigned duty; and now there is proposed to this House a measure that is not calculated to meet food could excel potatoes. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Brighton said "No Rules of Procedure will be satisfactory to this House which confer the power of closing a Debate upon a majority of Members." Now the hon. and learned Member wished them to understand that the clôture ought not to be enforced by a simple majority; but the form of his Amendment would justify an inference that no majority, however large, should have power to close debate. If, then, they voted for this Amend ment as it stood, and still contended | not even suggested that there had been that they were in favour of some kind of any attempt to abuse clôture by shutting clôture, then, logically, they must be in the mouths of unpopular men. [Mr. favour of the clôture with a vengeance, O'DONNELL: On the Socialist laws.] He for as they said that the clôture ought to was present during the debate, and be established, and that the majority there was no attempt to shut their ought to have no power to enforce it, mouths. In France he was not aware then it was obvious that the power to that it had been exercised in any matter close a debate must be vested in the of first-rate importance. They had heard hands of some minority, a reductio ad something of the opinions of M. Guizot; absurdum which, moreover, many of the but he must say that the hon. Member arguments against the proposal of the for the University of London (Sir John Government tended to establish. It Lubbock) had been somewhat unfair in seemed to him that the Amendmeut his reference to that politician. The was in substance identical with a claim testimony of M. Guizot really amounted for that liberum veto by which it was to this-that during his long life he did formerly in the power of one individual not remember one instance of the abuse in the Polish Assembly to arrest even of the clôture. If they were of opinion the most necessary legislation. They that a change was necessary in their had seen that the result of that right Forms of Procedure, they should make a in the Polish Assembly had been the change adequate to the occasion. Noultimate ruin of the country. Many of thing could be more dangerous to their those hostile to the proposals of the Go- credit than to take feeble and ineffectual vernment were so because they dreaded steps to amend their Rules. From the the possibility of an abuse and a finally very infancy of political discussion some acquired power in the direction of rash restraint had been put upon loquacity. legislation. For his part, he admitted The stroke of the clock warned the most the desirability of the utmost delibera- eloquent Professor that he must bring tion when great political questions were his lecture to a close. In a Church Conbefore the House, the very difficulty gress the inexorable bell of the Presiwhich might seem to stop the way dent forced the most loquacious orator being, in fact, the most important ele- to resume his seat. The House was not ment in securing full justice to every asked to do anything so despotic as that. shade of opinion. There was all the As the hon. Member for Southwark difference in the world between slow (Mr. Thorold Rogers) pointed out, it legislation and no legislation. Look at was only asked to revive in a mild form the numerous important questions which some of the ancient Rules of Parliawere pressing for solution-agriculture, ment; and he ventured to think that no the relations between capital and labour, impartial person could object on the Bankruptcy Laws, and a whole host of ground of its real interference with the others which had long loudly cried for liberty of discussion. As to the farthe interference of the Legislature. reaching impression which this division Some day the patience of the country would create, he might observe that all would become exhausted, and a sudden over Europe some of the keenest inteland imperative demand would be made lects had for some time been engaged upon Parliament to pass a number in criticizing Parliamentary institutions. of measures dealing with subjects of The result of this examination was anyextreme delicacy and requiring the thing but favourable, and the enemies most serious and calm deliberation. of Parliamentary government had found Some means were, therefore, absolutely ample material in the proceedings of necessary to enable the House to get that House to point to it with many a through the Business before it. But it telling sarcasm. In days not far distant was argued that the result of establish- the friends of liberty were able to boast ing the clôture would be that unpopular that the British House of Commons men would not be heard, and unpopular showed the possibility of reconciling Parties and sections practically deprived perfect freedom of speech with obeof deliberative voice. He really thought dience to the law; but recent proceedthat on this point they must appeal ings in the House had been used to to experience. How had the clôture illustrate the practical failure of Parworked elsewhere? In Germany it was liamentary institutions. If, then, they [Fifth Night.] were able by increased efforts to redeem | coming Obstructives who had never been their former honour and restore them- Obstructives before. The late Governselves in the good opinion of the nation ment had experience of Obstruction far once more, they should be doing a ser- greater and more prolonged than any vice, not only to their own country, but which the present Government had to to all elective Assemblies, which, with one contend with. The remarkable feature or two exceptions, were everywhere in about this scheme was that among those the civilized world children of the famous who were the greatest advocates of the and ancient Parliament of England. clôture were men on the Front Bench MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT said, opposite, who were Obstructives in the he felt bound to complain of the unpro- last Parliament. It was said the Tory voked attack that had been made upon Party taunted the Government with many Members on his side of the House failure to carry their measures, owing to by the speech of the noble Marquess Obstruction. He was not prepared to the Secretary of State for India. The answer for every Member of the Tory speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Party; but he could not recollect a single Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster instance where the Government was that evening, though a remarkable one, taunted with failure of legislation owing would not rank amongst his highest and to Obstruction. He admitted, however, happiest efforts-not from any deficiency that there had been charges against the on his part, but from the difficulty in Government that, owing to their miswhich he found himself in successfully takes and blunders in Ireland, they had defending a course like that proposed in wasted the time of the House over coerthe 1st Resolution. The right hon. cive measures for that country. As to Gentleman had twitted the Conservative the experience of the clôture abroad, in Party with not supporting the Resolu- France, where the form of cloture most tion, because they did not seem to ex- resembled the present proposal, large pect to again sit on the Government side majorities were systematically and tyranof the House; but they were happy to nously kept down by its operation, be able to disclaim, in spirit and word, and every Party in that country had in the desire for Office. They preferred to They preferred to turn protested against the hardships adhere to the great principles of the under which they suffered by reason of Constitution, to the liberty of Parlia- its constant application. Only recently, ment and of the English people, rather on an important occasion, it was applied than to court any possible advantage after one speech had been made by the which might accrue to them, or any Opposition. He was of opinion that the Party whatever, by a change of places clôture would be used for Party purposes in the House. As to the hon. and learned in critical times. Had it existed it Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaugh- would have been put into operation. nessy), he forgot, when he taunted the during the recent debates on the proTory Party with a desire to overwhelm posed Vote of Censure on the House of small minorities, that the Rules to which Lords, in order to prevent the exposure he took exception were to be found of the conduct of the Government in among the Government proposals. He connection with the Land Act. The contended this 1st Rule would not put Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster down Obstruction. It would not put an said that the freedom of the Press and end to Obstruction as it had been under- the right of public meetings were the stood in previous Sessions; and the great securities for the liberties of the greatest Parliamentary authorities of the people. But how long did the right hon. past had considered, and had left it as Gentleman suppose that these rights their deliberate judgment, that such a would exist after the destruction of the measure would not put down Obstruction. freedom of the Representatives of the The Tory Party were most anxious to people? It was a significant fact that put down Obstruction; but this proposal in most of the countries in which the would put an end to discussion and clôture existed there was neither freedom debate on great and important questions of the Press nor freedom of speech outwhen it was convenient for a Minister, of-doors. The right hon. Gentleman or the Government of the day, to do it. It had alluded to the fairness and sincerity would not put an end to, but would refine of the occupants of the Chair. For his Obstruction. It would drive men into be- part, he looked forward with dread to a |