awake, and this famous old ship would go down with all hands on board in the wild waves of its glory. Let them be wise in time. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) justly observed the other night that this House was becoming more and more the practical Executive Government of the country. But, surely, the first duty of an Executive authority was not to talk, but to act. An Assembly like this House, arrogating to itself Executive functions, and extending its long arm to the farthest bounds of a world-wide Empire, could not live by freedom of speech alone. If such a Body surrendered itself to unlimited talk it would not only evoke the indignant scorn of mankind, but it would also become a fountain of confusion and calamity as wide as the range of its interference. It was whispered abroad that the House was no longer what it once was; that the tide of its renown had begun to ebb; and if that allegation were true its causes were not far to seek. They all knew where they lay. It was not yet too late to redeem the name and fame of the House of Commons; but the opportunity might soon pass away, never to return. The issue was whether this illustrious Assembly, where freedom and order should be worshipped with an equal devotion, should slowly but surely sink into a degraded arena of adventurers and demagogues, or whether it should now, by a strong effort, renew the vigour and the splendour of its prime? With such an issue before them could they hesitatecould they pause? And persuaded, as he was, that nothing less than the proposals of the Government would be adequate to the end in view, he earnestly asked the House to sanction those proposals by decisive votes. MR. GRANTHAM said, he thought the hon. Member who had just sat down had spoken with great moderation; but, at the same time, he had not, in his opinion, contributed anything in favour of the Motion before the House, as his arguments had practically answered each other. The hon. Gentleman seemed to argue, when he referred to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), that that House ought to open its portals to any individual, however objectionable he might be, because otherwise his principles and writings would He become more widely known than before. The hon. Member ridiculed the position which the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) had taken up, saying that whenever there was any fear of a storm that hon. Member ran into the first cave. In point of fact, however, the hon. Member for Berkshire was doing exactly that which the hon. Member for Bath had shown was the wisest thing for Liberal Members to do at the present time, for the hon. Member for Bath said that a hurricane was brewing in this country, and that unpopular Members ran a risk of going down in it. thought there was a very strong feeling among the Liberal Party that this Rule was not necessary at the present time. The Prime Minister contended that both the overwork of the House and the Obstruction to which it was subject rendered the clôture necessary; while the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India avowed that he wished for it in order to put down certain hon. Members whom he regarded as bores; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary spoke of it as an efficient weapon against the existing powers of Obstruction hitherto lying dormant and unused, but which he unfolded with evident relish, as they reminded him of his days in Opposition, and in reference to which he would no doubt, soon find the Irish Members very apt pupils; so that there was, apparently, no complete agreement between these three Ministers, all of whom supported the Resolution for such very different reasons. The speech of the Prime Minister was, of course, interesting, not only for its own intrinsic merit, but as the work of a man whose great experience of the House added weight and value to his arguments. Their experience of the past 20 years had, however, shown them that the right hon. Gentleman constantly changed his views, and was from time to time led, by the pressure of circumstances, to discredit opinions that he had recently believed to be infallible. With regard to the question of overwork, it was to be noticed that the number of hours during which the House sat each Session was not a fair test of the amount of work to be done. It was true that in 1832 the House sat for 1,150 hours, and at a later period for 930 hours only, while last year the numbers went up to as many as 1,400; but that was no proof [Fourth Night.] of the House rebelling against overwork. After the Reform Bill, as was natural and desirable, came a period of considerable energy, followed by a time during which the inaction of the House only reflected the lethargic manner in which the country regarded political questions; and even now, but for the Irish difficulty, the House would pursue the even tenour of its way. The country did not desire, as had been said, the passing of so many new measures. Obstruction of the kind adopted by certain of the Irish Members, and not overwork, was the only excuse for the Resolution. There could be no question, however, that the House might, if it chose, grapple with that difficulty without adopting the clôture, and that much might be done by such minor reforms of Procedure as were judiciously and successfully introduced by Melbourne and Peel, men who were as worthy of respect in their day as the present eminent Leader of the House. The excessive numbers of Questions asked might, for instance, be much reduced, and much time might be saved by merely printing the Ministerial answers; for the pleasure of questioning seemed to depend very much on the publicity of the Question and the reply. The Prime Minister had reminded the House that 58 nights of last Session were devoted to the Land Bill, and had argued from that fact that the clôture would have been found useful. Now, it was admitted that the Land Act was so imperfect as to be urgently in need of amendment; but how would it have been improved or rendered more durable by curtailing the time and attention that were actually spent upon it? The truth was that an act of such importance, an act which so altered the existing relations of the bulk of the population of a country, ought not to be passed in one Session. The effect of the various propositions contained in the many sections of such an Act could not be ascertained without being sifted through many minds and months of consideration. How was the Ballot Act of 1877 passed? It was practically passed by means of the clôture, for a meeting of the Liberal Party was held, and it was agreed that all Liberal Members should take their Amendments off the Paper and allow the other side to carry on the discussion alone, so as to get the Bill through the Commons. By that means the Bill was passed in time to be sent to the House of Lords, not a single Conservative Amendment having been accepted by the Government. It was, however, thrown out in "another place." The consequence of that was that the Government had time to consider the objections which had been raised to it, and to considerably modify their own opinions in regard to it; and thus they were enabled in the following Session to introduce a Bill essentially superior to it, and that passed into law. In the same way he thought it would have been better if the Irish Land Bill had been thrown out last year, so as to give the Government time and opportunity to prepare a measure more perfect and just. He would, however, ask this-Supposing the clôture had been in force last Session, and applied so as to put a stop to the objections of the Irish Members sitting below the Gangway, what would those Gentlemen have said of the measure? They would have had just ground for saying that they had not been treated with fair play; and no one would have been surprised if they had endeavoured not only to do all in their power to prevent its becoming law, but also in frustrating its working after it had become law. Then as to the operation of the Rule, if the Government succeeded in carrying it. Was it only to be applied to the second and third readings of Bills and great debates? In that case it would have little effect in saving the time of the House. But if it were to be a constant weapon in the hands of the Government, and was to be used in the manner indicated in the speech of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India, then there would at once be an end of that freedom of debate which had been their boast for so many years. If the evident sense of the House was only to be declared by the Chair, when it was clear that there was a great majority in favour of the debate being closed, then he wanted to know why the Government had wasted their time and insisted on forcing on an unwilling House a Resolution which would never be put in force, when a Resolution of sufficient power to effect such an object would have passed almost sub silentro. Was it likely that any Speaker would ever take upon himself to state that it was the evident sense of the House that a debate should be closed without relying the difficulty with regard to Ireland was on the strict letter of the Resolution, as settled, he believed they would find that it might turn out that he was wrong? the old feeling still existed, and that He maintained that there must be some they would be able to go on for many meaning in the words of the Resolution years before any such Rule as this was with reference to the evident sense of the necessary. Some reference had been House, and that its meaning was that made by a preceding speaker to Jumbo. the evident sense of the House was to In his opinion, the cloture much resembled be determined by a vote of, perhaps, Jumbo. They were afraid that, like 201 against 200. If the clôture were to Jumbo, it might become mischievous in be used in that manner, then, to use the the future, and they would rather not language of the right hon. Gentleman put such a power in the hands of the the President of the Board of Trade, that Government. The Prime Minister was which was a hateful incident, and would very much in the position of a host who, be a hateful incident, of the Gladstone- having provided an ample supply for his Chamberlain Administration, would be- guests, insisted when they had sat down to come the daily life of the Radical Go- the entertainment that they should make vernment of the future. The Prime their dinner entirely from the first article Minister had founded the proposal, in a in the ménu, which he might call clôture great measure, on the number of pressing de bouche à la radicale. He believed that measures requiring to be dealt with. in the Resolutions which were to follow He had told the House that in 1878 he the one under discussion they might wrote in a certain periodical stating that | obtain everything that was necessary for there were 22 important measures re- amending the Procedure of the House; quiring immediate attention. Then, in and, therefore, he thought they ought 1879, he says he discovered 31, and in his not to rush headlong on that which was celebrated Mid Lothian campaign he so objectionable as the Rule now prostated the number he found was something posed. He felt very strongly that they like 40. If so, why did the right hon. were not being dealt with fairly in Gentleman not introduce those measures having that Resolution forced upon them when he was last in Office? There was when, apparently, there was no differno Obstruction then, for he had himself ence between them as to the way in admitted that it did not show itself till which they thought the Business of the 1878-9, when the Conservative Govern- House should be conducted. He therement was in power. But the country had fore regretted that the Leader of the not asked for those measures, and, there- Opposition had not been consulted on fore, they had not been passed. The right that question; because he felt sure that hon. Gentleman had also made a strong that right hon. Gentleman would have argument with reference to the Select done all he could to sink mere Party Committees that were appointed to consi- differences and to assist the Government der this question. Those Committees were in arriving at some common conclusion composed, not of partizans, but of men which would have been satisfactory to supposed to be eminent in their know- both Parties. The responsibility of makledge of the Rules and practice of the ing that a Party question really belonged House, and of what changes it was de- to the Government; because in their sirable the House should make in its autumn speeches it was announced by Procedure. Yet the Government now leading Members of the Ministry that wanted to do what none of those Com- they intended to have the clôture, or somemittees thought desirable. It was strange thing like it. The Government might that they should have gone on for so many now obtain a small majority, and their centuries without requiring the change victory, however slight, might be cheered now proposed. The whole feeling which by hon. Gentlemen opposite; but the animated the House enabled the two echo of those cheers would be but as the rival Parties to arrange when the debate clank of the chains that would enshould be closed; and, for his part, he slave freedom of debate in that House. did not believe that the old traditional [A laugh.] The hon. Member for Southfeeling of respect for the House, which wark (Mr. Thorold Rogers), who laughed, used to exist in the House, had yet should remember that half the benefits died away. It might be that there was of modern legislation had been conferred a break in their traditions; but when by minorities who had refused to be put [Fourth Night.] 1 down, and who persevered until they | it. The solitary exception occurred in were ultimately successful. The men 1629, when Speaker Finch refused to by whom Catholic Emancipation, the put a Question to the House, because he repeal of the Corn Laws, and many other had received the King's commands, and great measures had been persistently he got impeached for his pains afteradvocated might have been treated as wards. The fact was that the oppo"bores" and Obstructives under a sys-sition to this Rule was directed against tem of clôture enforced by a bare majority. The course of the present discussion showed that a different form of the clôture from that now proposed would be sufficient. The speeches of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) and other hon. Gentlemen opposite indicated that they were favourable to a two-thirds majority, or some other more moderate mode of discovering the sense of the House than the vote of a bare majority. In conclusion, he hoped that, if not in the first division, at least in some of the divisons that would follow, they would still find that there was enough freedom among the Liberal Party to secure the passing of a Resolution which would carry with it the evident sense of the House. MR. THOROLD ROGERS said, he would not have intruded on the debate had it not appeared to him that he might perhaps be able to say something that had not been said before, and so avoid those useless repetitions against which these Resolutions were aimed. It might be inferred from some of the Opposition speeches that the Resolution gave the Prime Minister power, for his own purposes, to interpose between the House and a debate, and summarily to close the latter; but on looking at the Resolution he was entirely re-assured, for all that it did was to make the Speaker or the Chairman the judge of the evident sense of the House, and neither could take the initiative without derogation to his high Office if he had failed to perceive or to find out what the evident sense of the House really was. He therefore concluded that it would be impossible for the action spoken about in the Resolution to be taken unless the evidence of the sense of the House was unmistakable and overwhelming. It had never been the practice of the House for a Speaker to take part with the majorities against the minorities. Throughout all the annals of the House of Commons, only one Speaker had failed in his duty to the House, and his consideration for those who spoke in the Chair, and the permanent traditions nity of his Office by lending himself to | there was a necessity for separating bethe stifling of a fair debate on any sub-tween the intention of this Resolution, ject, however small the minority might and the probable-almost inevitablebe? It was impossible to believe that the present Speaker or any of his successors would be guilty of such a gross dereliction of duty. The old Rule to which he had referred was still recognized in a lame and halting manner in the Rule passed in February, 1880, for the purpose of applying some remedy for an acknowledged evil. It was true that in the Legislature of the United States one-third of the House was required for the purpose of negativing a Motion that the debate be closed, but the Speaker there was chosen on distinct partizan grounds; whereas the Speaker of the House of Commons was never chosen on such grounds. They were told that the country was alive to the serious hindrance which this Rule would be to the freedom of debate. The country was much more alive to the serious hindrance to the progress of Public Business, and they knew very well the source from which these hindrances proceeded. He did not believe that the opportunity for exercising the Rule would be very frequent. There must be manifestations of prodigious impatience before the Speaker would take any step; and he must be further convinced that the time of the House was trifled with-he must, in short, feel that nothing could warrant a continuance of the debate. Though they might not often draw the sword of Justice, it was very desirable that they should have it in their power to do so; and so, though this Rule might not be often used, it was of great importance that they should have such an instrument for maintaining the character of their debates. He himself would have supported the clôture even if it had been in a stronger and more emphatic form. MR. J. A. CAMPBELL said, hon. Members on his side were all anxious that Obstruction should be prevented, and that the Forms of the House should be improved for the facilitating of Business. It had been said that the office of the House was not to speak, but to act. It was, no doubt, important that they should do legislative work; but it was equally important that that should be done in such a way as to satisfy the country that it had been deliberately and well done. It appeared to him that VOL. CCLXVIII. [THIRD SERIES.] effect of its operation. Sometimes it D It |