might be very damaging to themselves? | having rashly averred that it was the The hypothesis that an unworthy ma- evident sense of the House that a debate noeuvre could be successfully resorted to should close, found, on a division, that under the circumstances assumed by hon. only a minority was in favour of this Gentlemen to close a debate proceeded step. He would look foolish. If it upon a series of improbabilities amount- turned out that a narrow majority was ing together to an impossibility. It was in its favour his position would be even worse. He would have committed a mistake he could not retrieve, and exposed himself to imputations of partiality. The House might depend upon it that no Speaker would act in the assumed that the Leader of the House would signal to the Speaker to declare the sense of the House. Let them consider the position. What sort of a Speaker must they have to accept the signal? What sort of a Prime Mi-matter, unless he were satisfied that a nister must they have to give it? The preponderating majority would support Leader of the House acted under the him when he took upon himself the rehighest responsibility; his character, sponsibility of closing a debate. He saw position, and career were at stake. The no reason to suppose that future Speakers Speaker was not less responsible than would be partizans, or that they would the Leader of the House. He was placed cease to be men of honour and independby the House in a post of judicial trust. ence. The Chair was, to a great exThen the suggestion was that, at a signal | tent, removed from Party strifes. But, from the Leader of the House, he was to even if the Speaker remained a politician betray his trust-to rise from the Chair and took part in the debates, there was no with a lie in his mouth, and declare that reason to suppose that he would exercise it was the evident sense of the House the power intrusted to him unfairly. that the Question should be now put. The Lord Chancellor was the Speaker of But that was not all; they must have the House of Lords, and remained a men so reckless of consequences to them- foremost Member of the Government of selves as to support such a manoeuvre. the day; yet no one would suppose Let them calculate the depth to which a that an Earl Cairns or a Lord Selborne Party must have sunk-[Mr. WARTON: Would, even after making the most tellIt has sunk.]-before it lent itself to ing Party speech on the floor of the such a proceeding. What a cry it would House, use his judicial power improgive to the Opposition if it could only perly for Party purposes. If he were to plausibly represent to the country that criticize the Amendment with the closelegitimate discussion had been burked. ness with which the Resolution had been For behind the majority would be the criticized, he should say that it proposed public out-of-doors. For the success, that no majority should have power to therefore, of this unworthy manoeuvre close a debate. The hon. and learned they must have an infatuated Minister, Member said he hoped the French name a dishonest Speaker, an absolutely blind of clôture would be retained. If they and reckless majority, and torpid, or were to quarrel with a thing because it utterly unintelligent constituencies. If had a French name, they would have to ever they had such a combination as quarrel with several good things which that, it would not much matter whether were not altogether inappropriate to an this or any other particular Resolution hour which was not far distant; and was standing upon the Order Book of were they to object to "Parliament," that House or not. The Leader of the which was a French word? The hon. Opposition felt the absurdity of the hy- and learned Gentleman said the institupothesis upon which his allies proceeded, tion was French; but it would be more and took different ground. He assumed correct to say that the power of closing that pressure from outside would be put a debate was European and American, upon Members to enforce the closing of and that it had been adopted in almost a debate. But if the clôture was only to every one of those Parliamentary Asbe put in operation when a debate had semblies which had been based on the been so protracted that the public out- model of our own. But if they wanted of-doors rose in sickness and indigna- an English name, closure was an Engtion, reasonable liberty of speech could lish word. The word could be found in not be in any appreciable danger. Again, Johnson's Dictionary, and he supposed consider the position of a Speaker who, hon. Members would allow that Shak foreign relations increasing, and their commercial interests multiplying, Parliament was so far from showing a disposition to relax its hold on domestic matters, over which it had heretofore exercised control, that it seemed rather disposed to take more of those affairs into its keeping. On the whole, he believed that the Resolution would prove beneficial in its working; and he hoped, therefore, that it would be accepted by the House. speare and Pope knew something of English, and they were authorities for the word closure. But he neither accepted nor rejected the Resolution because it had a French name or was a French institution, or because it had an English name or had been an English institution. He supported the Resolution because he thought it was suited to the circumstances of the case. As a matter of fact, not only had they the word closure, but they had the thing, to a certain extent, in that House. What SIR JOHN MOWBRAY said, that was a count out" but the closing of a hon. Members on the Opposition Benches debate? and what did the hands of the had been charged with holding extravaclock do at a quarter to 6 o'clock on gant views on the Rule under discusWednesday but close a debate? It sion; but he was not inclined to be was perfectly true they did not provide classed among that number. The loudfor the coming to a decision on a ques- est note of alarm had been sounded tion; but that used to be effected by an by the right hon. Gentleman who had understanding between opposing Par- just sat down. In the early part of his ties in the House, when they all felt speech the right hon. Gentleman spoke that a subject had been sufficiently dis- of the clôture as the minor proposition; cussed; and when that was the case, it and if that Resolution for gagging the was the practice always for the minority, House were the minor proposition, one although unconvinced by the arguments would like to know what were the major of their opponents, to allow the debate propositions that were to follow when to be stopped, and to accept the decision that had been forced upon the House? of the House. For reasons which were Speaking in no Party sense, he (Sir apparent to all, it was now considered John Mowbray) deeply deplored the that an explicit Resolution of this kind position into which this question had had become necessary to secure to the drifted. He lamented the paralysis of House the just and reasonable power of Business in the House, and thought the bringing a debate to a conclusion, when Prime Minister had a right to complain, the matter had been fully discussed, and as Leader of a large majority, that he was ripe for determination. It had been had lost the credit of being able to carry urged that this subject should not have three or four good legislative measures been made a Party question; but who in one Session. He also thought the was to blame for having made it a Party Prime Minister was right in not relequestion? The right hon. Gentleman gating this question to a Committee. the Member for North Devon and the The conclusions of Committees had genelate Home Secretary had, early in the rally been impotent and their results inautumn, announced their intention of op- considerable; but he had fully expected posing any proposal of this kind to the ut- that the right hon. Gentleman would most, and their cry had been followed by have consulted the Leader of the Oppotheir Party. The truth was that this sition before taking action, so as to have Resolution was necessary to enable the insured the carrying of the necessary House to get through the multiplicity of proposals by a large majority. It was its own Business, and to become master also to be regretted that, contrary to the of its own time. It had been said that assurances given by the Prime Minister though Foreign Assemblies had the during the Recess, this had been made clôture we did not want it, and the a Party question. If it had not become reason given was that we had more a Party question, what was the meaning Business. It was just because of that of those threats of a Dissolution which that it was necessary to have some Rule, had been spread so largely about the in order that the House might be master House to terrify young and weak Memof its own time. There never was an bers on the Liberal Benches? Empire which was so extended and Opposition were not terrified by those . diversified as this; and yet, while their threats, because they knew that the repossessions abroad were extending, their sult of a Dissolution would be to add to [Fourth Night.] The their numbers. Then there was a talk about resignation. In that he (Sir John Mowbray) did not believe; if he did, he candidly confessed he should deeply deplore it. Members were asked to consider this as a question of credit and of supporting the Government, and were not allowed to deal with it on its merits. ["No!"] Of that there could be no doubt after the speeches of the Secretary of State for India and the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The Head of the Government had admitted the loyal support which was given to the Government during several trying weeks of last year, and they were now ready to give similar support to any reasonable proposition submitted to them. But what they had mainly to complain of was that the Resolution, as presented them, looked very much as if it were brought forward by one Party in order to diminish the strength of the other. After what had occurred, he admitted that the House was bound to do something this Session; and he felt grateful to the Speaker for vindicating the credit of the Assembly on a recent unparalleled occasion, and recognized that it was its duty to do something to restore its order and dignity; but what was the way in which these Resolutions had been brought forward? Following the clôture Resolution, there were others which he was decidedly inclined to support; but Members were not allowed to consider one of those. The Prime Minister had put in the forefront of all these a single Resolution most obnoxious and repugnant to the feelings of old and experienced Members of the House, and so objectionable to some Members around him that they had to be coerced in order to obtain their votes. That Resolution was put forward as a thing which admitted of no modification, concession, or compromise-the Government must have the Resolution, the whole Resolution, and nothing but the Resolution. For his own part, although it would be the last step he should wish to see the House take, he was prepared, if the necessity should arise, to see adopted a proposal for closing debates in certain circumstances by a proportional majority. He was not prepared to oppose clôture under all circumstances; but clôture of a bare majority should have his irreconcilable resistance so long as he had a vote in the House. He did not admit the neces sity for such a violent step as the passing of the 1st Resolution. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had stated that the Resolution was necessary in order to vindicate the ancient fame of the House of Commons. For his own part, he not believe that that ancient fame would be vindicated by any such step as that proposed. It would best be vindicated by walking in the old paths. He recollected a memorable speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister nine years ago. The Liberal Government had been defeated in 1873 on the Irish University Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman resigned Office. His resignation, however, was not accepted, and in announcing his return to Office the right hon. Gentleman could only find expression for his feelings by quoting the words of the Roman General in the noble ode of Horace— "Neque amissos colores Lana refert, medicata fuco : Those words would now be a sufficient answer to the right hon. Gentleman. If the ancient tone and high character of the House of Commons had departed, they would not be brought back by any device imported from our Colonies, or from foreign countries, or by any electroplate wash of Birmingham manufacture. If the true virtue and ancient fame of the House had gone from it they would not be restored by the mechanical aid of a gagging clôture. Under the clôture a deteriorated House of Commons would cease to be the illustrious Assembly that for six centuries had enjoyed the confidence and esteem of the English people, commanded the respect of foreign countries, and built up the fabric of England's greatness. MR. WODEHOUSE said, that he would not further pursue the controversy by whose fault the subject under discussion had become a Party question; rightly or wrongly, avoidably or unavoidably, it had become a Party question, and there was no hope now of its ceasing to be so; but nothing was more remote from his own desire than to approach it in the spirit of Party. It had been said that the proposal contained in the Resolution was the device of an imperious Minister, whose impatient spirit would brook no opposition; but it was notorious, and they had heard it from the Prime Minister's own lips, that he had been one of the slowest and most reluctant to be convinced of the necessity for such a change. It had also been said that the closure was wanted by the Government as an engine to enable them to fulfil a Party programme of Liberal legislation. But under a system of Party Government every Government would have a Party programme. It was no reproach to them to endeavour to fulfil it; indeed, if they acted otherwise they would culpably betray the hopes of those whose confidence placed them in power. It was contended by the Party opposite that the Government should abandon the 1st Resolution, and rely exclusively on the other proposed Rules respecting Procedure. The answer to that contention could best be given in the words of a high authority-the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote). In February, 1880, the right hon. Gentleman made a speech in which, while expressing a strong repugnance to restrictions on freedom of debate and the rights of minorities, he said "I do not know that we have arrived at a perfect set of Rules; and I have no doubt that there are matters upon which we may have new Rules; and we may, from time to time, propose new Rules, and consider and discuss them. But if we think that by such Rules we are to prevent Obstruction altogether, we are reckoning in the dark. There is only one alteration of our Rules which would be of a character that really could prevent Obstruction, and that is one for which we have no English name, but which is known to us all under the name of the clôture." Here was a distinct admission from the right hon. Gentleman that the closure was the only thoroughly effective check upon Obstruction. Again, at Manchester, in June last, the right hon. Gentleman said possessed, given to it as a freewill offering by the spontaneous discipline and loyalty of all its Members. But that was gone; and what hope was there that it would ever return? Unless remedies were promptly applied, things would grow worse rather than better. There were innocent agents of Obstruction, and other agents the reverse of innocent. The pressure of both kinds would increase rather than diminish. The magnitude and growth of national affairs, and the general operation of democratic influences, would make increasing contributions to the block of Business. And there was a Party in the House avowedly ready, in the very words of their own Leader, utterly to disorganize and interfere with every Business. This policy was not a mere rejoinder to the Coercion Acts; it was proclaimed at a time when the Government were trying to govern Ireland without a Coercion Act; and the policy would survive if the Coercion Acts were repealed tomorrow. They were told that at the next Election the followers of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) would be largely reinforced. If that boast were well founded, it was the strongest argument for setting their House in order before the new comers arrived. Penal Rules directed against individual offenders were effective only against the coarser modes of Obstruction. To show how inoperative mere Penal Rules would be against subtle and scientific Obstruction, the following extract from The Nation would be instructive "The present legislative arrangements between England and Ireland cannot stand. They countries; they are behind the age. If addiare unsuited to the requirements of the two tional proof on that point is wanted, the Irish Members can supply it in any single Session. It is not putting the case too strongly to say the British Legislature is very much at their mercy. Against their will Business cannot go "We have had, this Session, to deal with a on. Without having recourse to open, gross, palstate of things which I fully admit is unprece-pable Obstruction, they can so clog the wheels dented in the history of Parliament, and which I also admit, if it should be proved to be permanent, will be a great blow and a great injury to the House of Commons, and will render necessary the adoption of measures which, if we possibly could, we would avoid introducing into our system." That was just the question. Could they longer postpone the adoption of those measures? Every right-minded man must deeply lament the loss of that excellent closure which the House once of the machine that it will do next to nothing; can bring great numbers of Irish Bills into the House of Commons-good, desirable, and useful Bills-and proceed to their discussion; they can interest themselves in English Bills of all sorts, Imperial and local, public and private, and debate them in the most painstaking and conscientious manner. A very proper course of action this, open to no Constitutional objection, quite legitimate, and perfectly in order; but the result of its adoption would be that little or nothing would be done." No penal laws could touch this kind of [Fourth Night.] Obstruction. They had heard much | closure would soon vanish after they had about the degradation which would be once had an opportunity of applying it inflicted on the House by the closure; to a Liberal minority, and a few years but was there no degradation in the hence neither Party would be willing to thought that the British Legislature abandon it. For his own part, he should could be truly said to lie at the mercy of prefer a simpler form of closure to that its worst enemies? The hon. Member now proposed-a closure, for instance, for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was reported to subject only to two limitations-first, have said last year that for every arrest that it should not be carried except in a under the Coercion Act the Irish Mem- House of a certain size; and, secondly, bers would fine the Government a night that the Chair should have the same of the time of the House of Commons; discretion in putting the Question to the in other words, that because the Go- vote as was given to the Chair under the vernment exercised certain powers with Rules of Urgency as to putting Motions which they had been armed by Parlia- for Adjournment to the vote. In his ment for the public good, the time of opinion, the growing sensitiveness of the the House of Commons was to be deli- House to the breath of public opinion berately wasted. Could any hon. Mem- was the best safeguard against the abuse ber opposite be insensible to the degra- of the closure. The abuse of the power dation of such a state of things as that? of closing a debate would inevitably reLooking at the question from a mere coil on those who practised it. As far Party point of view, would not the as right of speech in that House was closure operate in the long run more to concerned, a most complete gag had the advantage of the Party opposite been put on one of the Members for than to the Liberal Party? There was Northampton; but was he silenced, and "another place," even in this world, had they heard the last of him? or was which many Liberals believed to be he less conspicuous than when he sat paved for the most part with bad inten- and spoke there? Nothing of the kind. tions; and would the permanent Con- If Mr. Bradlaugh had spent an enorservative majority in that "other place" mous sum annually in advertising his ever hesitate to throw its shield over a Atheistical publications and his treatises Conservative minority in the House of on domestic philosophy, he could not Commons, if they thought that time and have done as much to extend their notoreflection would bring the country round riety as the House had done, free of to their side? When the Liberals were charge. Though the Opposition had in a minority they had no powerful renounced Mr. Bradlaugh and all his auxiliaries elsewhere. They had been works, they had invested him with a warned of "stonewalling," "filibuster- European and Transatlantic fame, and ing," and other Foreign and Colonial he now filled a space in the public gaze practices which would be introduced if second only to that other friend of the the closure were adopted; but no at- people so rudely expelled from their tempt had been made to trace the origin shores-second only to "Jumbo." The of those practices to the closure. He surest way in this country to swell the believed that they proceeded from other number of a man's adherents, or even of more general causes, and that, where a beast's adherents, was to give him the they and the closure existed side by side, chance of posing as a martyr; and any the closure was valued as a check upon minority which had been unjustifiably them. They were also told that the gagged in that House, would have its closure would convert every Member of ovations out-of-doors. Freedom of a gagged minority into an Obstructive, speech, it was said, was the ancient and even the hon. Member for Berk- glory of the House of Commons. He did shire (Mr. Walter) had threatened to not deny it; but he would rather say turn Obstructive under such provoca- that the true glory lay in the sober, tion. He did not think that the hon. temperate exercise of that freedom, and Member would ever fulfil that threat; in the uses to which it was turned. he believed rather that the hon. Mem- Every Member was free to speak at any ber would do what he always did at the length on any question; but if they all critical moment-he would run into the exercised that glorious freedom not nearest cave he could find. The objec- many weeks would elapse before a tions of hon. Members opposite to the hurricane of national indignation would |