other Rules which the House would hereafter have to discuss, and were not touched by this Rule. The question, therefore, which the House was now discussing, and the question which alone, it ought to be understood, was to be raised upon this debate and by this division, was that in a debate which was not obstructive, and which had not called for the intervention of the Chair, or in which no Member had continued speaking irrelevant matter, a single vote might put an end to debate, however orderly conducted. All this was to be done by the vote of a single Member. On reading through this Code of Procedure he confessed he was somewhat puzzled to know how the 1st Resolution got into its place, or how it got into the Code at all. It seemed to him as if some person had, with great care and skill, considered every form of Obstruction with which the House was familiar, and had carefully-and it might be wisely-provided for each one of them, and then that some stronger and different hand had come and placed this 1st Resolution in front of them all. He wished to say one word upon the safeguard which was supposed to be involved in the intervention of the Chair. In touching on the subject he was somewhat in a difficulty; for while what he said might be no more than justice, yet, addressed to the Chair itself, it might seem to amount to adulation. Yet for himself, and, he believed, many others, he believed that as long as the present Speaker occupied the Chair it would be very much better, in the view of great many Members of the House, that the Speaker should have the absolute decision of the question rather than leave it to that mixture of incongruous authorities by whom the suggested Resolution would be put in force. A great Party might recognize its responsibility; a single man might do so, but this system seemed ingeniously contrived to leave responsibility on neither one nor the other. No doubt anomalies might exist in any system without that system being bad. Whenever the Legislature determined to bestow the franchise, a line more or less arbitrary was drawn. But there was always a principle which dictated the point at which the division was made. What principle, however, could have suggested that 201 persons should have the power to close a debate which 200 desired to continue? But, to return to the Resolution itself, the hon. and learned Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had relied on the safeguard to be derived from the Speaker's authority, which was only to be exercised after the evident sense of the House had been shown. But how would that evident sense be apparent? Would it not be by cries from one side of the House or the other? An evident sense, it had been argued, would clearly not be that of a bare majority. But was that majority to be a majority of Members present, or what? What discretion, also, was to be allowed to the Speaker in putting the question? Upon the true construction of the Resolution he held that he had none. The words were that "Mr. Speaker may," and so on. His hon. and learned Friend, as a member of the Legal Profession, would know that the word "may," ," when so used in Acts of Parliament, was equivalent to the word "must," and the Speaker's discretion, therefore, amounted to nothing; otherwise, when invested with the power of closing debate Mr. Speaker deliberately refused to do so, Mr. Speaker would be acting in defiance of the evident sense of the House. He would suppose that in a particular case the Speaker, in the exercise of his discretion, came to the conclusion that it was the evident sense of the House that the debate should close. In the division, 201 voted for the closing of the debate, and 200 for its continuance. In that case the Speaker would have intervened in a mistake; because, in such a closelybalanced state of opinion, it was evidently not the sense of the House that the debate should close. The Speaker had intervened on one hypothesis, and the debate had closed on another. They would have attempted to ascertain whether the Speaker was right; they would find out that he was wrong; and then they would confirm his decision. The Home Secretary had told the House the other night that everything was decided by a majority; and the Prime Minister had said that a Government might be turned out, or a Bill passed, by a majority of 1. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. George Russell) went further, and declared that you could prevent even the introduction of a Bill by a majority. True; but not without debate. In this case the majority [Fourth Night.] C 2 violence, and without danger to the foundations of our national greatness and prosperity." He also spoke of prevented the minority from exercising their right of discussion-a principle absolutely unconstitutional. The Home Secretary had also said this must necessarily become a Party question, and the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India also admitted it must become a Party question; but that was not what the House had been told by the Prime Minister, and was absolutely inaccurate in one view of the Rule. The Prime Minister had described the Rule to be for the purpose of regulating debate, and maintaining order, and decency, and decorum. He (Sir Hardinge Giffard) knew of no reason why, with regard to such a question as that, any political Party should refuse their acquiescence. The Government had a right to call upon the Members on that side to aid and assist in framing a system which was intended for the common benefit of all; but if they admitted it was for the purpose of aiding and assisting in carrying Party measures, they could not call upon Members on that side to help them in doing that which they believed to be injurious to the best interests of the country. Whatever might be the views of the Prime Minister, there were, he thought he might say, three other Gentlemen in the Government who, at any rate, regarded this Rule as a useful instrument in their hands for the purpose of forwarding their own particular Party views-he meant their views in favour of particular measures which were adopted by their Party and not by this [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: The views of the majority.] Well, but what was a majority? The views of the majority were the will of the people. "The will of the people practically means the will of the most numerous, or the most active, part of the people-the majority, or those who succeed in making themselves accepted as the majority. The people, consequently, may desire to oppress a part of their number, and precautions are as much needed against this as against any other abuse of power.' That was the sentiment of that champion of bigoted Toryism, Mr. John Stuart Mill. In the minds of a great many, the significance of the Rules, and particularly of the 1st Rule, was very plainly interpreted by the utterances of Ministers themselves. A right hon. Gentleman said, not long ago— "I do not think intelligent people can deny that we are on the eve of fresh political changes, which, I believe, might be accomplished without "Carrying out the beneficial work of harmonizing existing institutions with modern necessities and the spirit of the times." That language in the mouth of the President of the Board of Trade had its significance; and it seemed to him that if the changes he hinted at were so imminent, they ought to preserve the safeguards they had in the interests of both the great political Parties, and not surrender them into the hands of Ministers who were capable of using such language. He would only say one word after what fell from his hon. and learned Friend behind him the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), about the example of foreign countries. In some of those countries, although the House should vote for the close of a debate, yet a Minister might, if he thought fit, reopen the debate, only with the consequence that it should be concluded in the ordinary form. And that was the sort of institution which was recommended by a Minister in the English House of Commons. The value of Parliamentary debates had probably never had a more eloquent exponent than the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself; and it was one, and not the least significant, of the signs of the times, that what the right hon. Gentleman wrote in 1879 he had not retracted himself in 1882; but it was absolutely inconsistent with the statement of many of his followers. It might well be that if the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly equipped with this weapon he would use it only for the purpose he had described; but how would he answer for those whose objects had been declared in the country, and which had not been disclaimed by them here? One valuable quality of Parliamentary debates, which it seemed to him most important that they should bear in mind, was the fact that when everybody had been heard, as in the analogous case of proceedings beaten he would say "Well, after all, I in Courts of Law, when a man was was right; but still I had a fair trial," the minority, as long as they believed they had fair play, and were enabled to express what their views were, were contented. But when they allowed the Party which was in the majority for the moment to intervene and say "No, you have been sufficiently heard," would | hon. Member for the University of Lonthat contentment continue? It went don (Sir John Lubbock) say he would somewhat farther than that, he thought; because if they caused discontent to Parties who were in a minority for the time, and made them believe that a measure had been passed notwithstanding their protest, and without giving them a proper hearing, the stability of those things which they had enacted was in peril. The right hon. Gentleman himself pointed that out in 1874, in speaking on the Endowed Schools Act. He would read one observation of the right hon. Gentleman, and let it not be supposed that he was reading it for the purpose of establishing any supposed inconsistency between the Prime Minister's observations then and his attitude now. He read it now because it was a valuable expression of opinion by the Prime Minister, which had not been answered, nor, as he understood, disavowed by the Prime Minister. What the Prime Minister then said was this "If you consult any one of those great poli tical writers who adorn the literature of their have no objection to this Rule, provided the power of enforcing it was always placed in the hands of his own Friends. That was, of course, what they would all say; but if they were to forge an instrument of this character it might get into what would be regarded as wrong hands; and the question was, whether it should be forged? He thought there was another danger connected with this question, and that was the effect which the adoption of this Rule would have upon the public mind out-of-doors. He believed that if there was one thing which was more firmly rooted in the mind of every Englishman than another it was this-that they had a House of Commons in which they could air their grievances, and that the House would make it impossible for any Minister, however powerful, to refuse to answer if a plausible case was made out. If this popular idea were interfered with, they would be interfering with what Mr. Roebuck-not the Mr. Roebuck of later years, hon. Gentlemen opposite might not accept his authority, but the Mr. Roebuck of an earlier time-had called the " safety valve." The Prime Minister had used the same metaphor. He said own countries, you will find their language respecting us uniform. When they look at our political Constitution they are struck by the multitude of obstructions which, for the defence of minorities, we allow to be placed in the way of legislation. They are struck by observing that the immediate result is great slowness in the steps we take; but when they refer to the consequences of this slowness, they find one great and powerful compensation, and it is that in England all progress is sure."-[3 Hansard, in those days a proud appeal to our ccxx. 1709.] favoured position was not a Jingo sentiment It seemed to him (Sir Hardinge Giffard), therefore, that they were in great peril of interfering with that course of things if they adopted this Rule. Was it not a fact admitted almost by every Member of the House that the House was better governed than it could be governed under this Rule by an understanding of Gentlemen on both sides of the House? The Prime Minister could not point to a single instance in which there had been any departure from the understanding of the great body of the House that the debate upon a particular question should close upon such and such a night when the Government had expressed a desire that it should close. Of course, it was all very well for hon. Members opposite to suppose they only meant to do what was right. He was surprised to hear so moderate, so candid, and, he would add, so wise a Member of the House as the "It has been providentially allotted to this favoured Isle," dom and authority, in their due and wise developments, not only may co-exist in the same body, but may, instead of impairing, sustain and strengthen one another. Among Britons it is the extent and security of freedom which renders it safe to intrust large powers to Government; and it is the very largeness of those powers, and the vigour of their exercise, which constitute to each individual of the community the great practical safeguard of his liberties in return. The free expression of opinion, as our passion. That noise, when the steam escapes, experience has taught us, is the safety-valve of alarms the timid; but it is the sign that we are safe. "that it should show to all the world how free It is a great and noble secret, that of Constitutional freedom, which has given to us the largest liberties, with the steadiest Throne, and the most vigorous Executive in Christendom. I confess to my strong faith in the virtue of this principle. I have lived now for many years in the midst of the hottest and noisiest of its workshops the language was figurative; but he understood that to be this House[Fourth Night.] man.' He "and have seen that amidst the clatter and the | be able to fulfil their desires. The fact din a ceaseless labour is going on, stubborn that some of them had suggested that it matter is reduced to obedience, and the brute powers of society, like the fire, air, water, and would not be used, or used but rarely, mineral of nature are, with clamour, indeed, but showed that they distrusted their own also with might, educated and shaped into the convictions. The Home Secretary had most refined and regular forms of usefulness for predicted that the Government proposal would be carried by a majority. would like to ask hon. Members opposite whether, if this were not a Party question, recommended by the Ministry of the day, they thought a majority would be obtained for such a proposal as the present one? If it had come from his own side of the House, how many hon. Members on the Ministerial side would vote for it? They had heard a good deal lately about the Parties that existed in the House and in the country; it was apparent that the old Party lines had undergone some change, and that differences existed among the constituencies represented by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Were the Moderate Liberals, who had inherited the traditions of the great Liberal Party, sure that in the time to come this fetter which they would have helped to forge would not be applied to them, when the differences to which he had alluded should have broken up Parties and brought about a crossing of Party lines? The question they were He had sought to translate some of the metaphors; but he would not strive to render into words what were the "brute powers of society;" but he was satisfied that if the "safety-valve" was taken away the danger that metaphor suggested would surely come. There would be a great number throughout the country who would look upon this as a gagging Resolution. He hoped this instrument would retain its French name. It seemed to him to reflect a French spirit, that spirit which, as surely as night followed day, carried with it reprisals; that spirit which, ever since 1789, had made each successive Government in France impossible, because each successive Government strove to avenge itself upon its predecessor. He had heard from moderate men like the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian) that the power of closing a debate would be very rarely used. That was a strange excuse for the alteration of the Constitutional principles of the House of Com-discussing was whether or not the whole mons. But was it clear that the Rule would be put on the shelf? Some people seemed to think that when engaged in political discussion they would always be reasonable and willing to recognize the rights of their adversaries who formed an opinion differing from theirs. Was that view in accordance with the experience of political life of right hon. Gentlemen opposite? tradition of the Liberal Party was to be reversed, and without the pretence of misconduct in debate, but simply from a desire to make things "more quick and satisfying," to quote the language of a Cabinet Minister, and, for the sake of assisting particular Party measures, they were to abandon the tradition of centuries, which had made the House of Commons the home of free speech? If the Moderate Liberals should think it right to aid in the forging of the proposed fetter, they would, he believed, find at no distant date that they had acted with fatal imprudence, and not more injuriously to the interests of the country than in defiance of the traditions of their own Party. MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN, interposing, explained that all he had said was that the clôture would be a powerful instrument to use when it should be required. SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD said, he had understood the hon. Member to say that it was an instrument which would be put on the shelf. If, however, it was to be used when required, where was the MR. DODSON said, that though the moderating effect of the hon. Member's hon. and learned Member who had just argument? If it was to be used when sat down had not actually sounded such the majority thought that it was required, extravagant notes of alarm as had emaand when they thought that the mino-nated from many hon. Members oppority were perverse, unreasonable, and even stupid, as they had sometimes been called, he feared that it would be found to be a convenient instrument by the aid of which hon. Members opposite would site, the hypothesis underlying the whole of his speech was yet that of the extreme alarmists. They had heard from him that the effect of the Resolution would be the suppression of free speech, and that the proposed Rule was not intended | which was With neither a repetition nor Obstruction. That was a pure assumption. It was never suggested by anyone on that side that they should stop a debate which was neither repetition nor Obstruction. Then it was said that the subsequent proposals of the Government were sufficient to meet the case of Obstruction. What about the case of last year; what would have happened had the Speaker not intervened? But, apart from that, let them take the case of a Bill which must be passed by a certain date. Suppose the Mutiny Bill was met with Obstruction, would the subsequent Rules secure the passage of that Bill by the necessary day? The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the power of the initiative placed in the hands of the Speaker could not be over-estimated. But the late Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir R. Assheton Cross) made light of the initiative of the Speaker. The Speaker, he said, was only to declare the temper of the House. He (Mr. Dodson) ventured to point out that the temper of the House was not the sense of the House, any more than the temper of an individual was the sense of the individual. all respect for the legal interpretation placed on the word by the hon. and learned Gentleman, "may" in the Resolution would not be construed to mean "shall." Hon. Gentlemen opposite assumed that this Rule was devised for Party purposes, for the suppression of discussion, for the injury of the Conservative, and the benefit of the Liberal Party. He ventured to say that if the effect of the Rule was to be as described by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken, the Liberal Party had most to suffer by its exercise. Rightly or wrongly, the Liberal Party believed their views gained by discussion; that their measures were, in the long run, advanced by the fullest discussion; and they believed, as it had been in the past, so it would be in the future. Therefore, entertaining that belief, surely they would be a most benighted set of personages if they proposed a Rule that was to have such an effect. Then, as to its being aimed at the Opposition, did hon. Gentlemen suppose the Liberals were so blind as not to know that the time must when they would be in Opposition, and consequently, if that were the case, it [Fourth Night.] come |