25 MARCH 1882, Page 2

On Thursday the debate was resumed by Mr. Beresford-Hope, who

said that Lord Hartingtoa had treated the Closure as a mode of putting down bores, which he certainly did, so far as those bores take up time which the House greatly needs for more important purposes, but why Mr. Beresford-Hope regarded that as a confession fatal to Lord Hartington's position, he did not explain. Mr. Walter stated that if ever be became a victim to the first rule, he should be tempted, for the first time in his life, to become an Obstructive,—which may be very true, and is an interesting psychological confession, but hardly seems to bear on the argument for or against the first rule. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach made, as usual, a very moderate speech against the closure, but he opposed the closure in any form, whether by a two- thirds majority, or a simple majority, as tending to silence the advocates of unpopular causes ; while Sir William Harcourt, who replied, availed himself of this attitude of the Opposition to point out that no one in that party had really committed them to a closure by a two-thirds majority, and that the only question really before the House was the right of closing debate at all. He ridiculed, however, with great force, the irresponsible character which it would introduce into the business of the House, if the Government could plead that they had not done what they ought to have done, "because the minority of one-third" would not let them.