Monday's debate on the Closure was not a very striking
one. Sir H. Giffard misrepresented Sir W. Harcourt and Lord Hartington as having argued for the closure of debate by a majority as a rule intended to stop fair discussion whenever a majority wishes to force on its measures, a most absurd carica- ture of what they did say, which was, that any Government commanding a majority ought to be able to carry its main measures, after sufficient discussion, against the obstructive talk of minorities. Mr. Dodson pointed out that the New Rule could not be abused except with the concurrence of an infatuated Minister, a dishonest Speaker, a blind and reckless majority, and a torpid constituency,—not a very probable combination of destiny. Perhaps the most remarkable speech was Mr. Whit- bread's, who pointed out that a closure by a majority of two- thirds was so far from being better than a closn% by a bare majority, that it must lead to a very objectionable practice of negotiating terms with the Opposition ; while the minorities which it was most needful to protect are not the large minori- ties which can almost always fight their own battles, but the
very small minorities, which sometimes wage a very righteous but uphill war against the conventional politicians of the day.
