lawful assemblies, finished up by challenging the Law Officers of the Crown to give him an instance in which an indictment had ever been preferred for an unlawful assembly. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Marum), arguing on the same side, instantly produced a case tried by Judge Patteson-[Mr. MARUM: That was a case of riot.] It was an indictment for an unlawful assembly also-and that was the way the time of the Committee was taken up. Hon. Members from Ireland wanted a definition of crimes, in the hope that the definition might fail on some point or other; that a criminal might have the opportunity, as one hon. and learned Gentleman had pointed out, of relying on the argument, expressio unius exclusio alterius. He would remind hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway that there was no universally-accepted definition even of the crime of larceny. He trusted the Government would not give way to hon. Gentlemen who, night after night, were wasting the time of Parliament.

MR. H. SAMUELSON said, he hoped the Government would either let the Committee report Progress or they would not. He had sat through many of these debates, and he had noticed, on an infinite number of occasions, the waste of hours at a time, owing to the Government strenuously resisting, for a long time, Motions to report Progress, and then, after all, giving way. He trusted the Government would consent to report Progress at once, or really insist effectually upon going on with the Bill.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL wished the Government would tell the Committee how far they were to go.

to take a Morning Sitting-the Irish Members would be reasonable, and meet him half way, by continuing the consideration of the Bill until a later hour.

MR. TREVELYAN said, if hon. Members opposite would allow the Committee to take this sub-section, the Government would be willing to report Progress. The question had been thoroughly discussed, and the definition of "unlawful assembly" had been given by every legal Member on the Treasury Bench; and the point was a very narrow one. When they considered the state in which Ireland was at the present moment-a state of which the public knew a great deal, but of which the public certainly did not know all-it was a very serious matter indeed that this extremely important Bill, with a matter of eight clauses now coming on, which would form a complete network to thoroughly strangle the murder and outrage which now prevailed in Ireland, should be resisted at the rate of two hours for every line of the Bill. The Government would be perfectly willing to report Progress when this sub-section was passed.

MR. PARNELL said, he wished he could share the right hon. Gentleman's confidence that the remaining eight clauses of the Bill would be effective for their work. He must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the time of the Committee up to this had not been spent over these eight clauses; but it had been spent over clauses which had no reference to the murder and outrage which now prevailed in Ireland. On the contrary, the clauses which the Committee had as yet discussed at any length were clauses for putting down MR. DILLON said, the Prime Minister private and public action-action which told them, at the commencement of the was legal in England. Even to the propresent Sitting, that he had no complaint posal to suspend trial by jury he and to make of any unreasonable opposition his hon. Friends offered no lengthened to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman opposition, and by far the most of the admitted that the opposition was pro- debate on that question was carried on longed further than he liked; but he by English and not Irish Members. could not say that it was unreasonable. With regard to what the hon. and He (Mr. Dillon) did not think any un- learned Member for Cambridgeshire reasonable opposition had occurred that (Mr. Bulwer) said about the Irish Memnight. They had now arrived at an ex-bers talking rubbish, he (Mr. Parnell) ceedingly important point, and it was not possible to carry on the discussion of the measure in a proper manner if they were only to get five hours' sleep out of 24. If the Home Secretary would consent to do what the Prime Minister consented to do last week-that was, not

must say that he had not spoken any rubbish, and he had not heard any of his hon. Friends do so. He had, however, heard some very rubbishy expressions from English Members-Members who did not understand the question, and who would not take the trouble to

MR. TREVELYAN said, that, unfor tunately, the arrangement could not be altered. A considerable number of Members had gone away under the impression that the House was to meet at 2 o'clock; and, at the same time, he was bound to say that, if only on the score of variety, it would be more convenient to meet at 2. They were likely to have a hard week.

inform themselves upon the points at | hours for a man, seven for a woman, issue. He would remind the Committee and eight for a fool." that an overwhelming majority of the Irish Members were opposing the Bill. In all the divisions there had been a majority of five to one of the Irish Members against the Bill; and in no division had the Government had more than 12 Irish Members supporting them. It came to this - that, comparatively speaking, the number of Irish Members opposing the Bill was larger than the number of Members of the House of Commons in support of it.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put.

The Committee divided:-Ayes 196;
Noes 25 Majority 171.-(Div. List,
No. 130.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.". (Mr. Trevelyan.)

MR. CALLAN said, that the real reason why a large section of the House desired to have the interval between 7 and 9 was in order that they might dine out. Hon. Members who came down to the House at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, and remained there until 1 or 2 in the morning, discussing the questions before the Committee, required more time than such Gentlemen as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). The hon. Member said he required seven hours' sleep. Probably he did; but it was a wellknown fact that six hours were enough for a man, and that seven were what a woman required.

MR. HEALY said, that he would take a division on the question of a Morning Sitting, with the Speaker in the Chair. In reply to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, he would remark that the Irish Members had something else to do besides sleep during the hours they were not in the House. They had to work.

MR. HEALY said, that before that Motion was put he wished to make an appeal to the Government not to take a Morning Sitting to-day. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had very little to do in Committee, but the Irish Members had a great deal. They did not finish until a quarter past 1, and they would have to be here at 2. ["Hear, hear!"] It was all very well to cry "Hear, hear;" but they ought to be "There, there." He would ask the Government not to put an undue strain on Members of the MR. TREVELYAN said, that a great House. The two hours' interval between deal of work had to be done out of the 7 and 9 were of no value to hon. Mem- House. For instance, to-day the Law Offibers-they only idled them away. Last cers of the Crown and the Home Secreyear they were happy to agree to Morn-tary, and those who were engaged in the ing Sittings, because the Prime Minister was conducting his own Bill, and he required the interval between 7 and 9 for repose. But the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was both young and strong, and he (Mr. Healy) did not see why he should require repose any more than anyone else. He would ask the Government not to impose upon Members, who did not get home until 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, the duty of coming here at 2 in the afternoon.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL said, he could not understand why Irish Members could not be satisfied with 12 hours' sleep. For his part, he only required seven hours; and he reminded the House of the saying of George III.-"Six

Mr. Parnell

conduct of this Bill, had arranged to hold a meeting-which would, undoubtedly, be a meeting of considerable length to settle the clause or clauses which were to be proposed. If these were not proposed at the Sitting to-day, it would be because the Government were anxious to make the new provisions as perfect as possible.

MR. GIBSON said, that probably the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) would not divide the Committee, when he reminded him of a circumstance which occurred just now. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had said that if there was to be no Morning Sitting he would be willing to go on with the consideration of the Bill-that the question

as to whether Progress was to be reported | had come to the conclusion not to press rested on the question as to whether his Amendment. there was to be a Morning Sitting. As there was to be a Morning Sitting, then Progress would be at once reported.

been a single Scotch vote given in favour of the Committee by going further into of the Amendments to the Prevention of the matter. Crime Bill brought forward by the Irish Members.

MR. MUNDELLA said, he could not see on what ground the hon. Member urged a change which the Scotch school boards did not desire.

MR. BIGGAR said, the argument the right hon. Gentleman now advanced seemed to him much more substantial than his former argument, and for that reason he would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing. Of course, seeing that he had asked leave to withdraw his first Amendment, he would not move the second.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill.'

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL said, he wished to make an observation. [Cries of "Divide !"] This was a Scotch Bill, and he maintained his right to express his views upon it. When he had requested the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) to withdraw his blocking Notice against the Bill-which the hon. Member very kindly did-he had thought that the measure was very little more than a continuation of the 3rd clause of another hon. Member's Bill. He had now, however, very grave doubts of the changes proposed. In the interests of the teachers themselves it might be desirable that the process of dispensing with their services should not be of a formal and grave nature.

THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman does not observe that this subject was passed in a former clause.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL said, that if the Committee would look at the clause they would see that it contained the words "certificated teachers." In the interests of the junior teachers it might not be necessary to make the process of dispensing with their services of such a formal and grave nature; but they had been told that several of the most important school boards of Scotland had petitioned in favour of the Bill as it stood. He confessed he had not thought it was so; but as he saw sitting opposite several hon. Members who were interested in the subject, and knew that if the Bill required amendment in this respect they would move in the matter, he would not occupy the time

Mr. Biggar

Motion agreed to.

Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 (Suspension).

MR. MUNDELLA said, he wished to add to the clause words to protect the rights of teachers appointed before the passing of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872.

Amendment proposed,

To add to Clause 4 "and nothing contained in this Act shall affect the rights of teachers appointed before the passing of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, in so far as the same are saved by that Act.”—(Mr Mundella.)

Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

(Sir Hardinge Giffard, Mr. Butt, Mr. M'Intyre, Mr. Charles Russell, Mr. Inderwick, Mr. Webster, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Gregory.)

[BILL 154.] COMMITTEE. Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Order in Council or Rule of Court not to come into operation until expiration of forty days after it has been laid before Parliament).

MR. PUGH said, he proposed to leave out of the clause the words "or Rule of Court." He did not know how far the Committee would care to go on with the clause at this hour in the morning. It was a measure of an important character, and, so far as he was aware, it was altogether unprecedented. There was no Court in the country, and he was not sure that there ever had been, where the Judges had not the power to make rules for procedure. It was so in the Bankruptcy Court, in the Divorce Court, and in the County Courts. The Bill stated that no Rule of Court with regard to pleadings and practice should come into operation until it had been before Parliament for 40 days. What would be the effect of passing such a law? Why, the Judges would not be able to make and put into practice the most simple

rules until they had been on the Table | took of it. The question was simply

of the House 40 days; and if Rules were made and laid on the Table, and the full period had not expired before Parliament rose, those Rules, which might be wanted for a special purpose immediately, could not be put in force until the following March. The great bugbear with hon. Members opposite was that, as matters at present stood, the Judges might in their rules unduly interfere with juries. But if that was the intention of the supporters of the Bill the course they should have taken was obvious. They should have endeavoured to amend the 20th section of the Act, which at present provided a saving clause in the general law with regard to juries-which provided that juries should not be touched. If the existing law was not sufficient it would be possible to amend it. The proposal that was now made seemed to him to show a distrust of the Judges which had not been exhibited before, and surely some valid reason for it should be given before the Committee were asked to depart from the old custom in regard to these Rules of Court. A Committee was appointed to inquire into these matters last year, and they made a Report, in which suggestions were offered in regard to what were essentially points of practice. He had no hesitation in saying that, to a great extent, these suggestions were worthy of being carried into effect; but the effect of this Bill would be to delay the operation of any rules made in accordance with the suggestions of the Committee and to hamper the Judges. He did not wish to occupy the time of the Committee, and he would, therefore, now confine himself to moving that the words "or Rule of Court" be struck out. He would not deal with the question as to whether a Bill should be passed to apply this new rule to "Orders in Council;" but certainly one was not necessary in regard to the rules made by the Judges. Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 5, to leave out the words "or Rule of Court."-(Mr. Pugh.)

this. According to the Acts passed for regulating procedure in civil cases in this country, a great deal of respect was paid by the House to the Rules framed by the Judges. New Rules, according to the Act of 1875, must be laid on the Table of the House, and it was not proposed to alter the disposition of that Act. But what the supporters of the Bill said was-"Let the Rules be laid on the Table of the House for a reasonable time before they came into operation, and do not make a farce of the whole proceeding by laying them on the Table after they have come into operation, and when the House has no proper opportunity of dealing with them." This was a short statement of what he and his hon. and learned Friends who had their names on the back of the Bill wished to see carried out. It was said that to require the Rules of the Judges to be laid on the Table of the House before they came into operation was unprecedented; but that was not so. Only recently Parliament had considered the Statutes of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Rules were to be made, and they were to be laid on the Table of the House before they came into effect. A discussion had taken place on the subject. The Rule for the regulation of Public Parks, and many other instances, might be mentioned. Well, it could not be said that these Rules affecting the practice of the Courts were of so very different a nature that they should not be laid on the Table of the House for a limited space before they came into operation. Rules had been made, and laid upon the Table of the House, abolishing the nominal titles of Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer. These Rules were laid on the Table in order that the House might discuss them and give its consent to them, or withhold its consent, if it thought proper. The proposal was not merely that of one side of the House, or of one section of Members; but it was the unanimous opinion of the solicitors, who knew more about the matter than

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the many hon. Members, that the Bill before

Clause."

MR. INDERWICK said, this was really a serious and substantial matter, and he did not complain of the view his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Pugh)

the Committee should pass. The Judges had under their consideration certain alterations of what was called procedure. No one could doubt that the Judges were the proper persons to regulate the procedure of their own Courts; but it