time in the smoking-room, on the terrace, or talking to friends in the lobby.

The first order of the day is "Questions." It has come to be the heaven-born right of all the memfers of the House to pepper the Government with questions before settling down to the work of the day. This is a cheap and favourite method for members of small calibre to get a little cheap notice in the country. The instant anything occurs which occupies anv considerable space in the public eye, there is a rush among those sitting on the back benches to get the eyes of the

world upon them by asking a question about it. On the day of my visit there were thirty-four questions on the printed order paper, all of which were asked, and all answered in the fullest, frankest, and most courteous manner. The answering of those thirty-four questions did not consume as many minutes.

Several army officers thought it a fitting occasion for them to make some remarks, and they did it in as dull and prosy a manner as an English army officer can achieve, and were rewarded by having nearly everybody straggle out of the House. There is no actual magic about the

It has

It

British House of Commons. its quota of clever men and a large number of very ordinary ones. has produced a long line of eminent men whose patriotism has ennobled the country, and whose eloquence has enriched literature. It has never failed to command the best talent of the nation, and it has entrusted to its guardianship and care the destiny of a great empire whose interests reach all over the globe. It has its dull days and its scenes of excitement, but no one who has interest in the great things of this world can ever enter its portals without emotion, or look from its galleries without feeling at least a ripple of sentiment when he thinks of what it has been, what it is, and what it may become.

It is befitting, says an English writer, that the first assembly of gentlemen in Europe should stand as an example of courtesy and decorous conduct. In no legislative chamber in the world is there probably more good breeding and consideration shown than in the two Houses of Parliament at Westminster. If rancorous and bitter speeches now and again find. find utterance, they merely serve to emphasize the excellent tone which usually prevails.

So regardful has Parliament become of its dignity, that to the statutory regulations have been added others which find the stimulus to observance in an instinctive sense of propriety. For instance, there was an unrecorded rule of the very near past which prescribed the wearing of the orthodox black frock-coat and tall silk hat, and he was a very bold man who would venture to traverse that custom. But what is the case to-day? The wearers of the "bowler" hat reach double figures. Mr. Edward Blake favours the expansive wide-awake. Mr. Courtney, learned and impressive, displays a yellow or buff waistcoat without provoking a comment. In details of this description Parliament has grown distinctly

democratic.

It has, however, remained rigid and immovable in matters regulating conduct.

There is an education in the use of the hat awaiting every new legislator. Accustomed to the ordinary practice of wearing his hat when standing and removing it when seated, he now discovers the contrary rule is to guide him. He may, if he chooses, sit covered; and the exercise of this discretion, resulting in an indiscriminate mixture of covered and hatless heads, gives an aspect of unconventionality to the assembly little harmonizing with its importance. In one set of circumstances only may a member speak with his hat on. That is when he desires to put a question on a point of order after the Speaker has submitted a motion prior to a division. Many are the occasions on which a member, forgetting this rule, has suddenly found his head encased by a friendly hand in a hat belonging to another that crowned him in ridicule. Mr. Gladstone was once the victim of absent-mindedness in this respect. The massive and venerable head was surmounted by a hat picked up hap-hazard, and so small as barely to cover the crown-a picture which convulsed the House.

The deference due to the chair is, very rightly, observed with unswerving strictness. Every member on entering or leaving the Chamber must bow to the Speaker. Should he neglect to do so a storm of reminders will assuredly assail him; or, if he crosses the House from one side to the other, the same act of obeisance is required from him. When a member is speaking, it is an act of discourtesy to pass between him and the Speaker, unless he sit on the third or a higher bench from the floor.

When the Commons are summoned to the Lords to hear the King's speech read or the Roval assent given to bills, the practice is for the sergeant-at-arms to remove

the mace from the table, and, bearing it on his shoulder, head the procession to the Upper Chamber, the Speaker coming immediately behind him. Should an excited member come between the Speaker and the mace, his flagrant act of indiscretion would bring upon him an avalanche of complaint and condign admonition subsequently. Under no circumstances may a member occupy the hallowed sphere between the Speaker and the "gilded bauble." The only persons privileged to do that are the three clerks of the House, whose seats are placed between the Speaker and the symbol of authority. In the House of Lords there is a similar rule constituting it irregular to pass between the woolsack, on which the Lord Chancellor sits, and the table, or between the woolsack and any peer who is speaking.

There is to be no reading of books or newspapers for mere pleasure on the floor of the House; nor may a member read his speech. He may. however, make use of notes, and

sometimes these are so copious as to bring him dangerously near breaking the rules.

The order in which speakers are to follow each other is left entirely to the discretion of the Speaker, except where pre-arrangement is made for a speech from either of the Front Benches. The general rule followed is to call a speaker from each side. of the House alternatelv. preference being given to those who are known to have special interest in the subject under debate. To "speak plain and to the purpose is the golden rule advised, but not always followed. The man prone to repeat his arguments is liable to be summarily stopped. No member must be referred to by name. Not "Mr. Smith," or "Mr. Jones," but "the honourable member for York." or "my noble friend, the member for Dublin," is the approved formulary. A member can only speak once in a debate, except to correct a misstatement. But when the House is in committee there is no limit to the number of

speeches which one man may make. Any allusion to debates of the same session is out of order, except where absolutely justified-and the Speaker decides the point-and a member must not reflect upon any previous decision of the House unless he intends to propose the rescinding of that decision. If a member refuses to withdraw and apologise for insulting words, he is handed over to the sergeant-at-arms, and detained in custody until he has given an assurance that he will not engage in further hostile proceedings. The same fate may also await the aggrieved party who declines to accept an apology or refuses to express his satisfaction with the withdrawal. Happily such episodes are much less frequent now than when duelling was such a prominent phase of political controversies.

Gentlemanly conduct is as desirable in the listening as in the speaking member. To sit patient and

silent under a bitter taunt is a qualification that very few parlia

mentarians possess. Still, "the

thunder of white silence" is a much more common way now than in the old days of answering invective or signifying dissent. Those who have only read and never listened to a parliamentary debate may have a very crude idea of what has actually taken place. "The "cheers" which so freely dot the newspaper account are not always the sounds that thrill and stir the blood. A roll of emphatic "Hear, hear's" is a cheer within the meaning of parliamentary procedure, and as such it appears in the reports. It answers for the reverberating shout of the mass-meeting. The word has not yet been struck that describes the genuine, enthusiastic cry raised at St. Stephen's when a master-mind touches the chords of sympathy.

A member may be called to order for infringing any of the rules, and if he refuses to withdraw,

the Speaker may order him to be suspended for the remainder of that day's sitting. For a second. offence he may be suspended for a week, for the third offence the restraint lasts a fortnight, and for subsequent offences for a month. In each case the member is prohibited from entering the precincts of the House while the suspension lasts. Recalcitrant members receive their sentences in various moods. The mere intimation is generally sufficient to ensure a quiet, sometimes dramatic departure. If, however, the order is disobeyed, the be-sworded sergeant-at-arms is instructed to take the matter into his hands, and, summoning a couple of his myrmidons, the trio approach their victim, lay gentle hands upon him, and persuade rather force him to leave. Even in this distressing matter the gentlemanliness of the House never deserts it.

It is now a most rare procedure to commit a person-member or stranger-to the Clock Tower, but many cases have occurred, and perhaps the one best remembered by the present generation is that of Mr. Charles Bradlaugh. The committal is "during the pleasure of the House," but it may be terminated by a prorogation. A prisoner can present a petition praying for his release, and expressing contrition for his offence, or a motion may be

made in the House for his discharge. A former practice of requiring a prisoner to receive the judgment of the House kneeling at the Bar has been done away with, as a consequence of a Mr. Murray refusing to kneel in the year 1750. The latest instance of a person being brought to the Bar was in the session of 1897, when Mr. John Kirkwood, a notorious money-lender, was required to occupy that undignified position for refusing to answer questions when a witness before the Select Committee on money-lending.

presentatives from foreign countries. Nor is it in Keswick only that these meetings are held. The Keswick Convention has become the mother of numerous others springing up in various parts of Great Britain and the Continent, and even on this side the sea.

It is interesting to look into the origin of this great Pentecostal movement. Like many a great issue it had its beginning in small things. and its originators little knew how great a work they wrought. In the year 1873 small meetings were held in connection with the mid-day prayer-meetings of the Young Men's Christian Association. The few attending these meetings sought a full deliverance from sin, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit for service. There were many instances of marked and immediate blessing. Similar meetings followed in Dublin, Manchester, Nottingham, and