would exercise the franchise if they had it; and Mr. Hope, Mr. J. Hardy, Lord Henry Scott, and Mr. W. Fowler also spoke briefly against the Bill, the latter on account of its injustice to married women. Mr. Heron and Sir C. B. Adderley, on the contrary, supported it, as did

The Attorney-General, who dwelt on the barbarous state of the law in regard to women's property, and the stimulus which women's suffrage would give to reform in this respect. He spoke also of the fitness of women for political duties, referring to the glories of the reigns of Queen Elizabeth and Queen Anne.

The Attorney-General for Ireland answered his colleague in a highly diverting speech. Taken conjointly with the 8th section of the Married Women's Property Act, he maintained that the Bill would give a vote to every married woman, though the promoters of the Bill said that was not their object. But, in truth, no one could tell what the Bill meant-not even its author, and it could only be made intelligible by the process through which the Highlander's gun went-putting "a new stock, lock, and barrel to it.' Mr. Dowse insisted on treating this Bill as a small part of a large scheme. The tendency of the Bill was not only to enfranchise women, but to let women become judges, Chancellors of the Exchequer, and Attorney-Generals. He admitted that some judges were old women-but that was no reason why all old women should be eligible for judges.

Ultimately the House divided, when the numbers were:-For the second reading, 143; against, 222. Majority against, 79. Mr. Gladstone's expected conversion to the feminine cause was not declared; but Mr. Disraeli gave a silent vote with the minority. The most unpleasant episode of the Session occurred when Sir Charles Dilke, in redemption of the pledge by which he had acquired notoriety during the recess, moved for an inquiry into the Civil List. Such a scene, happily, is not often witnessed; and had a large section of the House desired to reinstate Sir Charles on the doubtful eminence from which public opinion had deposed him, no better course could have been taken than that which they adopted. On the Speaker calling upon Sir C. Dilke,

Lord Bury rose and put a question of privilege. Reading the terms of the oath of allegiance taken by each member, and the declaration of Sir C. Dilke at Newcastle that he was a Republican, he asked whether the two were not irreconcilable, or at least whether Sir Charles ought not to be called on to repudiate his declaration. Seeing that every item of information which Sir Charles was about to move for could already be obtained in the library of the House, he regarded his motion as a colourable method of repeating that declaration.

The Speaker decided that it was no part of his duty to say what was consistent with a member's oath, and as to the motion, he saw nothing irregular in it.

Sir C. Dike, on rising, was received with a faint cheer from a

1872.]

[51

Sir C. Dilke and Mr. A. Herbert on the Civil List. few gentlemen about him, and with loud groans from the Opposition. He began by disclaiming all intention of going into the wider question raised by Lord Bury; his aim was to show that Parliament had a general and special right to inquire into the management of the Civil List, and that there ought to be such an inquiry. In support of his first contention, he quoted a variety of precedents, from 1732 downwards-though, even if there were no precedents, Parliament should create one-and he argued that inquiries at the beginning of a reign, when alone they were now made, were insufficient and futile. The object of such an inquiry was not to destroy the vested interests of the holders of sinecures and unnecessary offices, but to prevent new interests being created, and to facilitate the next settlement of the Civil List. But precedents for interfering with the arrangements made at the beginning of the reign had been created by what he called "resumptions by the Crown," such as the sums charged on the Estimates for the conveyance of members of the royal family, entertainment of royal guests, the grant of the lodges in the royal parks to individuals, &c. Passing on to explain the nature of the returns he intended to move for, Sir Charles dwelt on the importance of obtaining correct information as to the expenditure of the Civil List and the savings on it, which he asserted could neither legally nor in policy be transferred to the Privy Purse. On this part of his subject, and for the purpose of illustrating the obscurity and irregularities of the Civil List accounts, and the failure of those responsible to comply with the Civil List Act, he entered into a lengthy and complicated examination of the Exchequer accounts from the beginning of the reign. Next he discussed the character of the hereditary revenues and of the Duchy of Lancaster, maintaining that they are public property, and that the present arrangement is an inconvenient fiction. At this part of his speech Sir Charles withdrew his statement that the Queen paid no income tax, expressing his regret that he had been misled. He gave various reasons in support of the opportuneness of the inquiry during the present reign-the public belief that the Sovereign had accumulated large savings; the grants to the Princesses, which he asserted were entirely unprecedented; and the secrecy maintained in respect of royal wills, which made it impossible to ascertain the Sovereign's private fortune. The only two objections to it were the alleged decrease of the Civil List, and the absence of all demands on account of debts; but the first, he asserted, was not true, and the second was irrelevant. Finally, he urged the importance of granting the inquiry in view of the impression which prevailed that under the shadow of the Crown large sums were wasted.

When Sir Charles sat down there was a cry for a division, but Mr. Gladstone rose, and, touching first on the statement that the inquiries into the Civil List at the beginning of the reign were useless, reproached Sir Charles with some warmth for careless investigation into his facts. The committee which sat at the beginning of this reign had made a careful investigation, and the

Civil List showed a very large reduction on the two former reigns. Of Sir Charles's figures, he observed that they left a very confused impression on the mind, and he complained that he had not furnished the Government with particulars, although he had been requested beforehand. To go into the charges arising out of these accounts was quite impossible without notice; but they and his observations about sinecures were equally beside the question, and would not bear the inference which Sir C. Dilke suggested. As to his motion, some portion of the information asked for was already before the House in a different form. But, with regard to the new portion, Mr. Gladstone said it was impossible to consider it without referring to the incident in which the motion originated. By the unfortunate speech at Newcastle, Sir Charles had brought the subject into an ill-omened association with proposals to change the form of our Government, which were most repugnant to the great body of the people. In severely condemning the circumstances attending this meeting, Mr. Gladstone was loudly cheered, especially when he declared that it was Sir C. Dilke's duty, in his assumed character of a "public instructor," to have made it clear to his audience that Parliament was solely responsible for the Civil List, and that the Queen had nothing to do with the settlement of it. To grant the motion would be to propagate a belief in the country that the House of Commons had assented to it in direct reference to the Newcastle speech, and as an initiation of the change. To the creation of such an impression the Government was unwilling to contribute. Eulogizing her Majesty's faithful adherence to her compact with the nation, and contrasting it with former times, Mr. Gladstone mentioned that the Queen had since the commencement of her reign spent 600,0007. on private pensions, and he urged the evil precedent it would set to future Sovereigns if the people attempted to reopen the life bargain. As a matter of policy and as a matter of grateful duty to the Sovereign, he asked the House to reject the motion, and without further discussion. This last suggestion was loudly cheered, and

Mr. A. Herbert, in endeavouring to second the motion, was met with a storm which for some time entirely drowned his voice. As the cries of "Divide," mingled with groans and an occasional hiss, lulled, he was heard to be apologizing for Sir C. Dilke for his unintended personal attack on the Sovereign, while proclaiming his own preference for a Republican form of Government. This redoubled the uproar; but Mr. Herbert persevered resolutely, and sent out for a glass of water in sign of his unflinching determination to be heard out.

The Speaker interfered in his favour, but with only slight effect and presently the Opposition in a body, as well as a considerable number on the Ministerial side, got up and left the House. Mr, Herbert went on, comparatively undisturbed by noise, to controvert some of Mr. Gladstone's objections, but he was presently brought

to a stop by a motion to count the House. Three times this motion was made, but on each occasion the Speaker found more than forty members to be present. A fourth member then called the Speaker's attention to the presence of" strangers," upon which the galleries were cleared amid much confusion, and the reporters were excluded with the rest of the outer world.

At the end of about an hour "strangers" were readmitted, and the House was then found to be engaged in dividing on the question of the adjournment of the House, which was beaten by 261 to 23.

Mr. Fawcett said that, though a year ago he might have voted for the motion, now that it was associated with the Newcastle speech, which he thoroughly disapproved, he should vote against it. The question of Republicanism ought not to be raised on a miserable haggle over the cost of the Queen's household.

Mr. Liddell protested against a remark of Mr. Fawcett's that the Conservatives had attempted to stifle discussion. They had listened in silence to Sir Charles Dilke, and it was only when Mr. Herbert rose, who had no connexion with the question, that the interruptions began. The House then divided on the motion, and it found two supporters only (besides the two tellers), the numbers being 276 to 2. The result was cheered from both sides.

The following graphic description of the scene in the House during the absence of reporters is given by an eye-witness:

"Mr. Herbert continued in a strain of strong invective, but was totally inaudible to the members of the House, who had by this time assembled in large numbers behind the Speaker's chair, where they gave vent to their disapprobation in wild discordant cries, amongst which it was easy to detect a very good imitation of cock-crowing in a voice very similar to that of an Hibernian baronet. Eventually Mr. Herbert pledged himself that he would not detain. the House for more than five minutes on condition of their listening to him, and Mr. Headlam, crossing over to the Opposition benches, timed the hon. gentleman by a watch which he openly held in his hand. Mr. Herbert proceeded to denounce the Civil List system as being extravagant, and warned the House that the country would draw their own conclusions from the manner which hon. members had refused to hear him. An extravagant Civil List, he said, at all times exercised a bad influence on society. Here he was again met by loud cries of Divide!' and a scene of the greatest confusion prevailed. In the midst of this, Mr. Headlam warmly rebuked the hon. gentleman for not fulfilling his pledge, and then there was more cock-crowing and disorder amongst the members crowded in the vicinity of the chair. Presently Mr. Dodson advanced to the table, when the House was hushed to silence. dignified terms he drew attention to the cries that had come from behind the chair, which, he said, were not consistent with the dignity of the British House of Commons. The scene he had witnessed gave him the greatest pain and apprehension. He appealed for order, and was met by loud cheers on both sides of the House.

In

"The Speaker hereupon rose, and said that he had certainly heard sounds which were very unusual in that House, but he could not discover whence they came. Mr. Herbert then essayed to conclude his observations, and was heard to say that the refusal of the papers would have an effect that it was not desirable to produce. The scene that evening would do more to increase a Republican feeling in the country than anything else.

"After this, Mr. Mundella, in energetic and powerful language, regretted that the House had declined to hear the statements of the two hon. members; at the same time, however, he repudiated having any sympathy with them in the motion they had brought forward. The House, he was grieved to say, had assumed an aspect worthy only of an assembly on the other side of the Channel. He trusted that such a state of things would never occur again. It savoured of persecution, and the great masses of the country would so interpret it. He disagreed with the proposer and seconder of the motion, and thought the scene they had witnessed would tend to elevate them to positions they did not deserve. If, as it seemed, Sir Charles Dilke's object was to carry out economy, why did he not attack the granting of large and important sums, instead of coming to the House and endeavouring to carry out narrow, contemptible, and petty economies-such as the clothing of trumpeters and other servants of the Royal Household? Both hon. members would do well to devote the courage they possessed to dealing with real grievances; but if their intention was not to promote economy, then it was to bring about organic changeswhich would not he at all desirable. He hoped, however, that the House, having regard to its own dignity, would allow their arguments to be heard and reported to the country.

"Following this speaker, Mr. Newdegate rose, and with his usual ponderosity and slow phraseology, expressed regrets of much the same character. He reminded the House of the necessity of hon. members always carrying on its business with dignity-and he confirmed the statement of the Prime Minister that Sir Charles Dilke had not chosen to retract one word he had said to the effect that he was in favour of a Republic. That he (Mr. Newdegate) conceived to be the intenion of his motion. If the hon. baronet desired a Republic, he would perhaps propose a repeal of the oath of allegiance.

"Mr. Dillwyn followed, and moved the adjournment of the debate, observing that he should decline to discuss anything whatever during the absence of reporters from the House."

With this the discreditable scene closed.

Some time afterwards Sir Charles Dilke distinguished himself by proposing as strange a measure as any that has at any time been introduced into Parliament. By the Public Lands and Commons Bill all lands belonging to incorporated bodies, or to trustees for public and charitable purposes, were to be transferred to certain elected officers who were within wide limits to dispose of them at