F

the House are paralysed. A new and exceptional course is imperatively demanded; and I am satisfied I shall best carry out the will of the House, and may rely on its support, if I decline to call upon any more members to speak, and at once proceed to put the several questions to the House. I feel assured that the House will be prepared to exercise all its powers in giving effect to these proceedings. Future measures for ensuring orderly debate I must leave to the judgment of the House; but I may add that it will be necessary either for the House itself to assume more effectual control over its debates, or to invest greater authority in the Chair." The reading of this document was interrupted by great cheering, as well as cries of "No, no," from the troublesome section of Irish members, among whom it created evident consternation. The Speaker then proceeded to state the question before the House, and put the amendment which had originally been moved by Dr. Lyons, member for Dublin city, to the effect that "remedial legislation take precedence over coercive measures." This was rejected by 164 to 19. The main question was then put, some of the Irish members walking out of the house; leave was agreed to, and Mr. Forster brought up the bill, which was read a first time, the second reading being fixed for that day at twelve. Mr. Gladstone, before moving the adjournment of the House, gave notice of his "urgency" resolution for the following day.

The House Powerless to Close Debate.-In February, 1882, Sir Henry Brand, the Speaker of the House of Commons, addressing his constituents in Cambridgeshire, referred to his actiou in closing the debate on the occasion just mentioned, and said: "In a statement which he made to the House on the eventful sitting referred to, he thought it his duty to put before the House the necessity of assuming more effectual control over its debates. That opinion was deliberately founded on observations on the course of debates in the House of Commons during the present and past Parliaments. It might not be generally known that the House of Commons had no power whatever to close a debate, so that it was actually left at the mercy of small minorities, who on various grounds might desire to obstruct the business of the House. The will of the House of Commons was expressed by its votes; every vote involved the putting of a question from the chair, and upon such question every member might speak once and as long as he pleased, provided he spoke to the question; but, by an artifice of debate commonly practised, by moving adjournments members actually spoke as often as they pleased upon every question. In committee of the whole House there was no limit to the number of times which a member might speak to each question, and at every sitting of the House the Speaker put from the chair questions by the score some more or less formally, but all of which might become the subject of debate without limit. Neither the House nor the Speaker could close a debate, and, as long as members rose and presented themselves to speak, the debate must go on. He knew of no power whatever that could close a debate in the House, except the sovereign power the

See pp. 374, &c.

Queen exercised when she prorogued Parliament. Face to face with grave crisis, he took upon himself to close a debate. But the House had not as yet signified its pleasure as to the action of the Speaker, should a similar crisis occur. It was said that freedom of speech was endangered if the House should assume the power to close a debate. Now, freedom of speech was the breath of the life of the House of Commons, and if freedom of speech was put in peril, he should be no party to a procedure of that kind; but he was persuaded that the House, in its wisdom, might find a way of safeguarding liberty of speech, and of combining order with freedom of debate."

New Rule for the Closure of Debate.-In February, 1882, Mr. Gladstone brought forward a series of rules to regulate the future procedure of the House, the first of which provided for the application of a closing power by the majority, under certain conditions, The debate upon this proposal, having been adjourned from time to time, was not ended until the 30th of March; when Mr. Gladstone, in a concluding speech, enforced the proposal of the Government by the remark: "We see the House exhausted with its labours, failing in the performance of them, beginning to lose the esteem of the country, lapsing by degrees into a slavery to its own system. This House has conquered its external foes, and now it runs the risk of being vanquished by those who, perhaps, are not the noblest of its own children." A division was taken on an amendment moved by Mr. Marriott (member for Brighton), "That no rules of procedure will be satisfactory to this House which confer the power of closing a debate upon a majority of members." As originally proposed, the amendment contained the words "bare majority," but the first expression was removed before the amendment was finally put to the House. There then appeared-For Mr. Gladstone's proposal, 318; for the amendment, 279; majority, 39. The normal majority of the Government being considerably larger, and the vote having been given under strong party pressure, this was considered a very doubtful victory on such an important point. The Procedure Resolutions were not again taken up until the autumn session of 1882, which was called for the express purpose of dealing with them, the ordinary session having been, said Mr. Gladstone, one of "utter ruin and discomfiture" as regards legislative matters. In the renewed discussion in the autumn, the Government announced its intention to adhere to the Closure resolution as first proposed. The first division of importance took place on an amendment proposed by Mr. Gibson (member for Dublin University), in favour of substituting a two-thirds majority for the Ministerial proposal. This amendment was defeated by 322 to 238 (majority, 84), the Irish party voting with the Government, after a preliminary meeting in which the course to be taken by that section was determined only by the casting vote of the chairman (Mr. Parnell). A few nights later (Nov. 10, 1882) a division was taken on a motion, by Sir Stafford Northcote, meeting the proposed new rule by a direct negative; and there then appeared-For the Closure resolution, 304; against, 260; majority for the new rule, 44. On this occasion the Parnellite section

voted against the Government. The following is the form in which the resolution passed, the words italicised showing the modifications introduced by consent of the Government into the original wording: "That when it shall appear to Mr. Speaker, or to the Chairman of Ways and Means in a committee of the whole House, during any debate, that the subject has been adequately discussed, and that it is the evident sense of the House, or of the committee, that the question be now put, he may so inform the House or the committee; and, if a motion be made ‘That the question be now put,' Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, shall forthwith put such question; and, if the same be decided in the affirmative, the question under discussion shall be put forthwith, provided that the question, that the question be now put,' shall not be decided in the affirmative, if a division be taken, unless it shall appear to have been supported by more than 200 members, or unless it shall appear to have been opposed by less than 40 members and supported by more than 100 members." In the course of the discussion, the Speaker (Sir H. Brand), having been appealed to by a member to state what he would consider to be "the evident sense of the House" in such a case, created a marked impression by the reply, "I have no hesitation in stating that, according to my construction of the resolution, it would be the duty of the Speaker to ascertain, as far as he was able, the evident sense of the House at large." Sir Stafford Northcote remarked that this was so important a statement, that he would ask the Prime Minister whether he would introduce some words into the resolution to make the point clear. Mr. Gladstone replied, that if gentlemen were satisfied with the definition given from the Chair, by all means let them note it as having been given; but he was not disposed to insert definitions by the Speaker into a rule. Anything, however, said by himself, or anyone else in the Government, could have no effect whatever in competition with what had fallen from the Chair. (Cheers.)

First Application of the Closure. This took place on the 24th of February, 1885. Mr. Gladstone had moved that the ordinary motions for the day be postponed until after an adjourned debate on the affairs of the Soudan; but an Irish member having the first motion on the paper, an amendment in his favour was proposed by some of his colleagues. Several other members of the same section of the House having spoken, the Speaker said, "It is my duty to inform the House that in my opinion the question has now been adequately discussed, and I gather that it is the evident sense of the House that the question be now put." Mr. Gladstone moved to that effect, amid much uproar from the Irish members, one of them (Mr. O'Brien) being named by the Speaker, and his suspension carried by 244 to 20. Mr. Gladstone's motion for putting the question was passed by 207 to 46; and his original motion to proceed with the adjourned debate was then carried by 222 to 19. Several of the English members helped the Irish division to make up the 46; and had the Ayes been seven fewer, the Closure would not have passed, as over two hundred votes are required to carry that measure if it be opposed by forty members. The matter was brought before the House, during the following week, by Mr. Sexton, member for Sligo, who moved the adjournment in order to

call attention to the action of the Chair; but the Speaker said a vital blow would be struck at the authority of the Chair if its rulings were to be challenged in this indirect manner. In common with other members, he had rights, and one of them was that, if his conduct was impugned, it should be in a form which would permit the opinion of the House to be tested. He therefore took upon himself to rule the proposed motion ont of order.-Mr. Sexton thereupon asked the Prime Minister to give him a day, but Mr. Gladstone declined, not recognising any urgency in the

matter.

Comparative Failure of the New Rules.-Notwithstanding all that had been done in the autumn session specially called for the purpose in 1882, we find Mr. Gladstone making the following remarks on laying the foundation stone of the National Liberal Club, Nov. 4, 1884: "Believe me, the House of Commons at this moment has connected with it, not a single, but a double work of reform. There is a reform without, in the vast extension of the constituency; but, not less important, there is also to be performed a great work of reform within. For that noble assembly, the first deliberative assembly in the world, is now doomed to see its efficiency impaired and its dignity destroyed by the advantage which its own too generous rules have enabled individuals and sections to take, so that the House itself has become the slave of those individuals and sections, and nothing can relieve it from that slavery except a great and drastic change in the forms of its procedure. To every one of you, hardly less than the great question of the franchise and what is immediately connected with it, I commend the consideration of that subject, which I assure you is not less pressing and not less important than any constitutional question that has ever been brought before the people of this country."-The whole subject had to be taken up by the Government next in power, and further rules and modifications were adopted.

The New Rules of 1887.-The first of these new rules, establishing an amended form of the Closure, was carried in the House of Commons on the 18th of March, 1887, by a majority of 262 against 41. It ran as follows: "That, after a question has been proposed, a member rising in his place may claim to move 'That the question be now put," and, unless it shall appear to the Chair that such motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question, That the question be now put,' shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate. Provided always that questions for the closure of debate shall not be decided in the affirmative, if a division be taken, unless it shall appear, by the numbers declared from the Chair, that such motion was supported by more than 200 members, or was opposed by less than forty members and supported by more than 100 members. Provided always that this rule shall be put in force only when the Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means is in the chair." On the motion of Mr. W. H. Smith, the rule was at once made a standing order of the House. At a protracted sitting which commenced three days after (March 21) it was enforced for the first time, by a majority of 207 against 54.

Vacation of a Seat.-The Chiltern Hundreds.-By ancient law, a member of Parliament cannot voluntarily vacate his seat; but on acceptance of an office under the Crown his seat is vacated as a matter of course, the rule being that he must return to his constituents for them to express their approval of such a step, by re-electing him. The stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds is an ancient office, entailing, now, neither duty nor emolument; but its acceptance affords to a member of Parliament a ready means of resigning his position, and the office is retained for the convenience of members of the House. It is in the gift of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it has sometimes been applied for and resigned by different persons three or four times within a week. An interesting question respecting application for the office arose in July, 1880. At the general election in the previous April, Mr. Dodson (formerly Chairman of Committees in the House) had been returned for Chester, but, accepting office in Mr. Gladstone's Ministry formed soon after, he had gone back to his constituents, and was re-elected. A petition, however, was presented against his first return, and, on hearing, the judges pronounced such return null and void on the ground of bribery and treating, but that no corrupt practice had been proved against the candidate. The question as to the legality of the second election was not raised, Mr. Dodson applying for the Chiltern Hundreds, and being returned for Scarborough soon after. It was remarked in the House that there was no former instance, in the history of the British Parliament, of a Cabinet Minister having accepted so humble an office as the stewardship in question. With regard to the practice of bestowing it, Mr. Gladstone said that the rule was "to consider whether the gentleman who asks for the office can by possibility be escaping from any duty he owes to Parliament, or any law under which he has come by his election to Parliament; and, unless there is some ground or colour of positive objection of this nature, to grant the office without making further inquiry."

The Stewardship Refused.-An instance of this kind occurred in 1842. Mr. Goulburn, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, declined granting the office to Viscount Chelsea, on account of a suspected arrangement for the purpose of avoiding investigation into bribery; but he said in his letter that "under ordinary circumstances I should not feel justified in availing myself of the discretion vested in me to refuse or delay the appointment for which you have applied, when sought for with a view to the resignation of a seat in Parliament."

New Writs.-Under an Act of George III., five members are appointed for the purpose of issuing writs, in the event of the illness or death of the Speaker. The appointments are made at the opening of each Parliament.

The House of Commons at St. Margaret's Church.-On Sunday, March 22, 1887, in accordance with a resolution passed in the previous week, the House of Commons attended a special service at St. Margaret's, Westminster, to celebrate the jubilee of her Majesty's reign. The Speaker was attended by two ex-Speakers and about 450 members of the House. The last occasion of such an attendance was on Sunday,

R R