Sir Stafford Northcote languidly supported Lord Randolph Churchill, asserting that
in 1820 the House of Commons had completed its own business, and was only waiting for the Bill of pains and penalties from the House of Lords. But if so, it had, not completed its own business. If that Bill of pains and penalties had been persevered in, it would have needed the sanction.of the House of Commons. Sir H. Wolff and Mr. Gorst supported the leader of the Fourth Party, on the extra- ordinary ground that a.precedent dating from before the Reform Bill,—though it had nothing on earth to• do with the represen- tative character of the House,—could not apply to a period sub- sequent to the Reform Bill; while Sir W. Harcourt pointed out very powerfully how impossible it is that Lord Randolph Churchill's principle should not have been enunciated in 1820, had the statesmen of that day known anything about it. In the end, the motion for adjournment was lost, by a majority of 67 (209 to 142).
Previous page
