ton" once a Member of this House, I felt certain that the measure would not be proceeded with in its present form in the present Session, and, therefore, he had the less reluctance in withdrawing the Amendment of which he had given notice. ["Oh !" and "Divide, divide!"] "Whenever he took up an opinion, whatever might be the circumstances or the cause that he adopted it, he had so ductile an imagination that before he had talked long about it he fervently believed it." will, when I appeal to their sense of fairness, allow me to say a few words. I ask that indulgence because our position as aboriginal Adullamites is somewhat peculiar. LORD ELCHO: Sir, I shall not trespass long upon your patience; but, as one Well, the right hon. Gentlemen will not be of the aboriginal Adullamites, I claim the offended with me if I compare him, at least indulgence of the House for a very few in that respect, with Mr. Burke. The moments. [Cries of "No!"" Bar, bar!" right hon. Gentleman, however, has also" Chair !"] I claim this indulgence, and sometimes the advantage of a facility of I hope hon. Gentlemen below the gangway forgetfulness. I do hope that the good-for the interruptions came, I think, exsense of the House of Commons will allow clusively from that part of the Housethis question to be adjourned till next Session ["Oh, oh !"], in order that Her Majesty's Government may make themselves masters of the question before it comes forward again; that they will not believe that the landed interest, when the unrepresented towns are enfranchised, and the boundaries are arranged, consist only of farmers and farm-labourers; and that they will recollect that they will have to deal even then with half the people of England, so that they will be prepared to come forward on a subsequent occasion with a measure which will be more adequate to the occasion, and more calculated to give content and satisfaction to the people of this country. CAPTAIN HAYTER said, he rose to ask a Question of Her Majesty's Government after the direct appeal made to him by the noble Lord the Member for Chester. That appeal was the more deserving of attention from him inasmuch as it was contained in a speech which, as far as he could understand it, was much more condemnatory of the Government scheme than was the Amendment. As matters now stood his Amendment had been robbed of much of its significance by the concession of the whole point by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [ No! no!" and "Divide, divide!"] Much more than this, whether there were any grounds for them or not, there were rumours beyond the walls of this House, and in the press, and even within the House itself, that would very materially alter the result of a division. He did not say that Her Majesty's Government had given the slightest reason for it. He appealed most to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Chester in confirmation of that fact, and he appealed to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the real intentions of Her Majesty's Government. ["Divide!"] He Our David has left our Cave and made friends with Saul, for this night at any rate. Now, any one who listened, as I did, with very great pleasure, to the speech of my noble Friend-a most able speech, most effectively delivered-must have preserved this idea that if we go to a division the body of my noble Friend will go into the lobby with the Government, but his heart still remains with the opponents of the measure. ["Oh!"] For he denounced the policy of the Govern ment in every possible way; he objected to the provisions of the Bill, and he even went the length of prophesying not only what his own course would be with regard to it, but what the eventual fate of the Bill must be. He said this is a Bill so ill-constructed and so ill-matured that it will not, and cannot pass, and he stated further that in Committee he would oppose it "tooth and nail." That was my noble Friend's expression. The only reason my noble Friend gave for voting with the Government was that he did not wish to bring about a change of Government at this particular time, and that reason actuated him-not that he had any confidence in the Government with reference to their conduct on the question of Reform, for upon that point he said he had no confidence-but his reasons arose, as was said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, from his confidence in Lord Clarendon. As one of the aboriginal Adullamites, I desire to express my opinion that the division under these circumstances will be a division taken upon a false issue, that it will be no test as to the real feelings of the House upon the question as to whether the Bills of the Government are matured or well-considered, Motion agreed to. Main Question put, and agreed to. (In the Committee.) Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.) Some hon. Members crying "No!" Mr. SPEAKER put the Question again; and some hon. Members again crying "No!" and others for a division; The Committee divided :-Ayes 403; Noes 2: Majority 401. ་་ and whether their proceedings, taken as a | SPEAKER again declared that in his opinion whole with reference to the question of the Ayes have it. Reform, are such as to merit the confidence of the House. The division will not give the country a fair test of what our feelings are, and I for one rejoice that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells proposes to withdraw his Amendment. I rejoice at this, because I for one have no desire to embarrass Her Majesty's Government. [“Oh, oh!''] I am not aware that I have differed so much as hon. Gentlemen appear to think from the course pursued by my noble Friend the Member for Chester. Had there been a division I was prepared to have voted against the Government; but why? As a protest against the hasty, inconsiderate way in which they proposed to legislate on this question. It is not because I am hostile to the Government that I have adopted this course. It is because I am opposed to legislating upon this vital question upon incomplete information and untrustworthy data, and because I am opposed to legislating upon this subject in haste. I think that the recommendation of my noble Friend is a wise one, and I trust that the Government will withdraw their Bill for the present Session-["Oh, oh!"]-and not sacrifice their friends by persevering with what I regard as an impossible mea House resumed. Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday. MR. LOWE: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call attention to a point of order. I wish, if I may be allowed, to call attention to the scene that has just taken place—a scene regrettable at any time, but more especially considering the importance of I can state very the measure before us. little of it, for very little did I see of it; but what I wish to state is that, in common with a great many other Members, I left the House, being unwilling to force a division on a Motion which an hon. Member was anxious to withdraw. Having left the House, many of us, when the Motion had been disposed of, endeavoured to return, but we found it physically impossible to enter the House. What passed inside the House I cannot say, but when, with the greatest exertion, I and other Gentlemen forced our way in we found we had no opportunity of discussing this important "This House, although desirous that the subjects of the franchise and of the re-distribution of seats should be considered together, is of opinion that the system of grouping proposed in the pre-measure, which we had wished to do on sent Bill for the Re-distribution of Seats is neither convenient nor equitable, and that the scheme of Her Majesty's Government is not sufficiently matured to form the basis of a satisfactory measure." The Question that I have to put is, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." And many hon. Members crying "Aye!" and some "No!" Mr. SPEAKER said, that in his opinion the Ayes have it. Whereon some hon. Members crying, "The Noes have it!" Mr. SPEAKER again put the Question; and many hon. Members crying "Aye!" and some "No!" Mr. the question of your leaving the Chair. We found the House in Committee, and that a Motion for reporting Progress had been proposed. I wish, Sir, to have your opinion whether it is right, and whether it is a precedent that ought to be tolerated in this Assembly, that hon. Members should be debarred, without any fault of their own, and by actual physical violence [“Oh, oh!"] from discharging their duties as Members of this House. I have stated my own experience, perhaps other Members will state theirs, and I think it is very hard that any Member, by no fault of his own, should be debarred by obstacles abso lutely insuperable from re-entering the House to discharge his duty. have been precluded from doing so after the Motion for going into Committee was agreed to. He might, however, have raised the question on the Motion for Adjournment. The complaint made by his MR. BERESFORD HOPE stated, in corroboration of what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne, that when he and many other Mem-right hon. Friend (Mr. Lowe) of the scene bers came back they were met by a rush like that at a minor theatre-a rush that would have been disgraceful even at such a place. It was with great difficulty that he and others forced their way in, and they then found the House in Committee. MR. HADFIELD said, that if hon. Members had left the House it was their own fault. There was a chance of a division, and they ran away. MR. ONSLOW said, that before the division, in going out of the House, he found himself absolutely carried back by the rush in the contrary direction. MR. MONK apologized for having put the House to the trouble of a division, but he was supported by a great number of voices on that (the Ministerial) side, and he was totally unaware at the time that the Motion was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. SIR JAMES FERGUSSON asked whether it was consistent with the practice of the House for the decision of the Speaker on the question of the Amendment being withdrawn to be challenged by hon. Members, whom he could name, who were supporters of the Government, and had hitherto been supporters of the Bill. A large portion of the House left in order to avoid being forced into a division on a false issue, and it was entirely in consequence of the extraordinary course taken by Members whom he could name. [Cries of "Name"] He could give the names if the House wished. ["No, no!"] MR. DARBY GRIFFITH bore testimony to the extreme inconvenience which had occurred on this occasion. He had had an important Amendment on the paper from the earliest moment, which would occupy as much time as any of the discussion that had already taken place. He was now deprived of that opportunity. He could name, but he would refrain from doing so, those hon. Members who had falsely given their voices in order to force a division. ["No, no!" and "Name"] He should decline doing so. ["Oh, oh !"] THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had not lost the opportunity of bringing forward his Amendment, because, by the rules of the House, he would outside the House raised the presumption that there was some organized plan on the part of some hon. Members to offer obstruction to those attempting to re-enter the House. [Mr. Lowe: No, no!] He was very glad to hear a disclaimer of any intention to impute such conduct as this, and he thought that very few Gentlemen in the House had not often experienced the same difficulty, especially when, as in this instance, the House was exceedingly full, and large numbers of persons had occasion to quit it in a way not often seen. The greatest care was taken that the question, instead of being taken as a mere adjunct to the Motion, should be read with great deliberation by the Speaker, and he noticed that there remained in the House a considerable number of hon. Gentlemen on the other side, including the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole), whom he thought might have been fairly trusted to take objection to the Main Question of the Speaker leaving the Chair. SIR MATTHEW RIDLEY said, he was among those who went out of the House, and he was not even aware that any division had been called, or any Motion made, inasmuch as the entrance to the House was entirely obstructed. MR. SCLATER-BOOTH said, it was true that many hon. Gentlemen had remained on the Opposition Benches, but in the confusion and the hurry and the surprise of the moment they did not remember that the hon. Member (Mr. Darby Griffith) had a Motion. MR. SPEAKER: I will first answer the question put by the hon. Member for Devizes on a point of order. If there had been no disturbance, and everybody had remained in their places, it would not have been competent to the hon. Member to have moved his Amendment. The only opportunity that the hon. Member had of moving it would have been in the first instance on the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) that the two Bills should be referred to the same Committee, to which proposal any hon. Member might have objected. If any Member objected to that proposal, the second Billthat for the Re-distribution of Seats must have been postponed, and that would have offered an opportunity to the hon. Gentleman of moving his Amendment. I mentioned this to hon. Gentlemen who spoke to me on the subject, that there was a Standing Order to the effect in the case of two Bills being referred to the same Committee if any Gentleman had an Amendment to move on one of them, fearing he should be precluded in moving it, he would have the power of objecting to it; but after the House had agreed to refer the two Bills to the same Committee, and an Instruction had been carried, then no Amendment could be moved but one. That was the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Wells, and the House having decided that I should leave the Chair, the opportunity for moving any other Amendment had gone by. As to the second objection of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne, it appears to have referred to what occurred before I left the House, while I was present in the Chair, and therefore I am able to speak to it. It is true some Gentleman said the "Noes " have it, and the House will remember that I put the Question several times in order that every Gentleman might have time to deliberate, and ultimately no objection having been made, and the House agreed unanimously, I said "The Ayes have it." Therefore no inconvenience did result from those who intended to vote with the "Ayes" crying out that the "Noes" have it. But as this is the first occasion of such an occurrence to the present House, and as this is a new House, I may inform hon. Members that any Gentleman who has first given his voice with the " Ayes," and then said that the "Noes" had it, in order to force a division, does an irregular and unParliamentary thing. And anybody who has given his voice with the "Ayes when the Speaker, in conformity with that, has declared "The Ayes have it," challenges that decision of the Speaker, and says "the Noes have it," would have to vote with the "Noes." Subsequently, there was some confusion from the large numbers leaving the House. I gave all the time that was possible before putting the Question. The Question was then put, and on the second occasion it was accepted unanimously that the "Ayes Ayes" had it. There was no precipitation at all when putting the Question that I now leave the Chair. Many Members remained in the Opposition seats. It was perfectly compe tent for any Gentleman to have challenged THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I have to ask a few minutes' indulgence at the hands of your Lordships, while I refer to a matter personal to myself. I know it is very irregular to make any allusion to what has occurred in "another place," and as a rule such allusions ought not to be permitted; but your Lordships will probably have seen in the newspapers this morning, that several charges were made against me last evening, in a spirit and in a tone which I cannot help thinking were entirely uncalled for, aud which I hope your Lordships will condemn. The incorrect ness of the statements made on that occa sion must, I think, be manifest to all Paris. On that single occasion it was referred to by Count Walewski, the President of the Congress, under the following circumstances:-One day, after all the duties of the Congress were over, he stated that the manner in which a certain portion of the Press in Belgium was conducted created some danger to the friendly relations that then existed between France and that country. It was not of that portion of the Press edited and established by Belgian subjects, and circulating among the Belgian people, that he complained, but it was of certain newspapers published in Belgium by French exiles with the intention of their being smuggled over the frontier and disseminated among the lower classes and the army of France, and preaching not only revolutionary doctrines, but the assassination of the Emperor. Count Walewski thought-I can scarcely say upon what grounds-that some expression of opinion on the part of the Plenipotentiaries there assembled would strengthen the hands of the Belgian Government, and would enable them to put an end to a state of things which endangered the friendly relations between the two countries. My reply to that proposition of the President of the Congress was reported in the Protocol of that day, and, with the permission of your Lordships, I will read it. It is as follows: Walewski on the excesses of the Belgian Press "As regards the observations offered by Count and the dangers which result there from for the adjoining countries, the Plenipotentiaries of England admit their importance; but, as the representatives of a country in which a free and independent Press is, so to say, one of the fundamental institutions, they cannot associate themselves to measures of coercion against the Press of another State." That, my Lords, is the only part I have taken in this general conspiracy against the freedom of the Press in Europe. The Protocol goes on to state "The first Plenipotentiary of Great Britain, while deploring the violence in which certain organs of the Belgian Press indulge, does not he sitate to declare that the authors of the execrable doctrines to which Count Walewski alludes, the men who preach assassination as the means of attaining a political object, are undeserving of the protection which guarantees to the Press its liberty and its independence." My Lords, if the right hon. Gentleman who made the charge against me had been present upon that occasion, I do not think he would have held different languageat least I am sure that there is not one of your Lordships present who would not 3 Q |