MR. O'BRIENSir, I rise to a point of Order, which I venture to think is of great interest to Members of this House, and a matter bearing on the Privileges of the House. On Tuesday last I got the first place in the ballot, and I then gave the usual public Notice that on that day four weeks I would move for a Select Committee to inquire into the alleged prevalence of felonious practices among certain public officials in Ireland, and into the conduct of the Government in reference thereto. Shortly after Ques- 677 tion time I handed in to the Clerk at the Table a written Notice couched in almost precisely the same terms. In the course of the afternoon I received from the Clerk at the Table a Notice intimating that you, Sir, took exception to the Notice on the ground that it was not sufficiently specific in regard to the officials referred to, and that it could not, in that form, appear on the Notice Paper. I at once communicated with the Clerk at the Table, and I tendered an amended Notice, giving, as I think, a closer definition of the scope of my Motion without mentioning names, and I then learned that the objection to my original Notice was that the whole class of officials in Dublin might consider that the phrase "certain public officials in Dublin." cast an imputation on them, and that I should specify the names of the particular persons I referred to. Well, Sir, I pointed out, in the first place, as far as I understood the Rules of the House, that it was sufficient in a preliminary Notice to state the subject of the Notice for the information of the Government, whoso conduct was impugned in the Notice. I pointed out, besides, that if I were to specify the names at once, and give the exact terms in which I should subsequently propose the Motion, I should have to mention a large number of public officials as to whom the evidence in my hands was ns yet only of a presumptive character, and I was most reluctant to do that until I bad an opportunity of producing the evidence upon which I based my statement. But I should either have to do that according to that requisition, or I should be obliged to restrict the scope of the Select Committee's inquiry to two or three notorious cases in regard to which the evidence, in my opinion, was complete. The effect of that would have been to thwart the object of my Motion. Under these circumstances, I submitted to the Clerk at the Table that it would be less objectionable and hurtful to avoid mentioning names for the present until I had satisfied myself as to the terms of the Motion. At the same time, I distinctly intimated that, if pressed to mention the names, I was perfectly ready to do so. The Clerk seemed to be impressed with my view of the matter, and made a verbal alteration in the amended Notice, and I came away think- 678 ing that the matter was all right. I remained in the House during the whole of the Evening Sitting, and I heard no more of the matter until the House had risen for the night. Then, on leaving the House, I got a note stating that you, Mr. Speaker, still objected to the terms of my Notice, and that it would not appear on the Paper. Of course, it was too late that night to do anything in the matter. I carne down to the House the next day and explained to you, Sir, how the matter stood. I may say that I had not thought it advisable to trouble you unnecessarily in the matter; but I had distinctly requested that, if the terms of my amended Notice were still objected to, I should be put in a position in which I should be able to exercise the right, which belongs to every Member whose privileges are interfered with, of making an appeal to you. You, Sir, when I mentioned the matter, were still of opinion that the names should be specified. That was the only objection you made to my Notice. You did not give me the remotest hint that my right of priority in the matter had been interfered with. I at once specified three of the most notorious names and handed in another Notice, which was accepted; and I thought the difficulty was at an end. To my amazement, on perusing the advance Orders on Friday I found my Motion was sixth instead of first on the Notice Paper for the 10th of June, and among other hon. Members who got precedence in the meantime was the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) for a Motion in reference to the Disestablishment of the Church of Wales, for which, if I remember rightly, the hon. Member did not ballot at all on that day. I asked the Clerk whether this was an accident; and I was informed by him that as other hon. Members had since given in Notices, and as I had not given any Notice on Tuesday—althongh I had actually given two Notices—I had forfeited the right of priority which I had gained in the ballot. I beg now to invite your attention, Sir, to the definition given in Sir Erskine's May's book as to the object with which the preliminary Notice is given, and the circumstances under which it might be interfered with. On page 272 he says—
Every Member is entitled to propose a Question, which is called 'moving the House,' or, more commonly, 'making a Motion:' but 679 in order to give the House due Notice of his intention, and to secure an opportunity of being heard, it has long been customary to state the form of the Motion on a previous day, and to have it entered in the Order Book or Notice Paper.It is not necessary to refer to the Standing Orders of the House determining priority; but Sir Erskine May, in describing procedure, says—Each Member, in his turn, then rises and reads the Notice he is desirous of giving, without comment or debate, and afterwards takes it to the Table, and delivers it, fairly written out, and with the day named, to the second Clerk Assistant: but only one Notice may be given by a Member, until the other names upon the list have been called over. When all the names have been called, any Members may give further Notices. In 1876, attention was called to a practice by which several Members combined to give Notice of the same Motion, in order to secure an undue priority for that Motion in the ballot. Such a practice was condemned from the Chair as irregular, and an evasion of the Rules of the House. It is not necessary that the Notice should originally comprise all the words of the intended Motion: but if the subject only be stated in the first instance, the question, precisely as it is intended to be proposed, should, if possible, be given in some days before that on which it stands in the Order Book.Then, in reference to the circumstances) under which a Notice may be expunged, Sir Erskine May says—Where a Notice infringes any Rules of the House, or is otherwise irregular or informal, it is corrected by the Clerks at the Table, before it is printed "—nothing is said of its never being printed at all—"if possible, in communication with the Member himself—and, in cases of special difficulty, under the direction of Mr. Speaker. If a Notice, when publicly given, is obviously irregular or unbecoming, the Speaker will interpose, and the Notice will not be received in that form.I must remind you, Sir, that you did not interpose when I stated the Notice in exactly the form in which I subsequently handed it in. Under these circumstances, I ask your ruling, in the first place, whether, in its original form, my Notice did not sufficiently state the subject of my Motion for the information of the Government? I ask you, also, to rule that the subject was eminently one; of which the House could properly take i cognizance. It is an inquiry into alleged courses which have created a scandal in the public service in Dublin. I ask you, further, to rule—apart altogether from the names of the individual s—that 680 whereas my Motion inpugned the conduct of the Government in reference to these alleged scandals—of which the Government perfectly well knew all about—it was already sufficiently definite without mentioning the names at all? Finally, I ask you to rule that when I—, having altered the Motion in the sense in which you desired it to be altered, having distinctly intimated that I would alter it still further by giving the names if required, and having, also, distinctly claimed the right of an appeal to you— if you are still of opinion that my amended Notice was not a regular one— I ask you to rule that I did all that was in my power, and that I took every step I could to give the House proper Notice, and that I am not to be damnified or to lose my right of priority merely because the Clerk at the Table neglected to inform me, before the rising of the House, that my Motion was still irregular? I ask you, further, to rule whether, if the Clerk objects to the wording of a Motion, and if other Motions are given in before there is any opportunity of discussing those objections or settling them— possibly by collusion with the Clerk at the Table, although, of course, I only put that as a possibility—whether that fact would destroy that right of priority?
MR. GLADSTONEI rise to Order. I heard the hon. Member say that something has occurred by the possible collusion of the Clerk at the Table.
MR. GLADSTONEI certainly heard the words "possible collusion," and in my opinion those words are irregular.
MR. GLADSTONEWhether it hag happened or might happen does not matter in the slightest degree. The words "possible collusion" ought not to be introduced into the debates of this House. The Clerk at the Table has not the protection which we all enjoy in the power of defending ourselves. I am afraid, Sir, that I can quote no precedent bearing on this point of Order, because, although for more than half-a-century I have been a Member of this House, I have never, until the last 681 three or four years, known such an attack made.
MR. O'BRIENI rise to Order. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to intervene when I am putting to you, Sir, a Question of Order.
§ MR. SPEAKERIf I had considered that the right hon. Gentleman was out of Order I should have called him to Order. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to proceed.
§ MR. SPEAKERI call upon Mr. Gladstone.
MR. GLADSTONEMy object, Sir, in rising to Order was to invite your protection for the Clerk at the Table.
MR. GLADSTONEI said that I was not able to cite precedents in this case for the protection of the Clerk at the Table, because I have never, during more than half-a-century, until within the last three or four years, heard those gentlemen, of whose method of performing their duties, generally, I say nothing, made the subject of attack in a manner which I will not characterize further. I will only say that the Clerks are here without the possibility of defending themselves; and it does appear to me that if the Rules of this House are to allow of attacks of this kind upon gentlemen who cannot defend themselves, it is a matter of importance seriously calling for the consideration of the House. I respectfully submit to you, Sir, whether or not the protection of the House ought not to be extended to these gentlemen?
MR. O'BRIENUpon the point of Order—[Loud cries of "Order !" amid which the hon. Member resumed his seat.]
§ MR. SPEAKERI should have risen at once to vindicate the impugned character of the Clerks at the Table if the statement I was immediately about to make in reply to the hon. Member did not itself amply vindicate it. With reference to the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), I have to say—
§ MR. SPEAKERI have to say that the hon. Member gave a Notice of Motion couched in these words— 682
That a Select Committee he appointed to inquire into the alleged prevalence of felonious practices among certain officials in Ireland, and the conduct of Her Majesty's Advisers in Ireland in reference thereto.My attention was called to that Notice, as being of too vague and sweeping a character; and the hon. Member was requested to put the charge in a specific form. Some time elapsed. The hon. Gentleman was, I believe, privately spoken to, and on Friday he put in his amended Notice in the following terms: —"To call attention to the felonious practices alleged to prevail among certain public officials in Ireland." The Clerk at the Table, in the exercise of his duty, did, I believe, object to that Notice as being tainted with the informality of the original Notice—namely, that it was too vague and sweeping in its terms. In defence of the Clerk at the Table, I am bound to say that, when complaint was made as to the vagueness of the charge, the hon. Member himself stated to the Clerk at the Table that it was easy to find names, and that he would, if necessary, put in the name of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and before a month had elapsed he had no doubt he would find evidence against him. I appeal to the House whether that is a Notice which should be allowed to remain on the Order Book of the House. When the hon. Member complains that he lost priority, I have only to submit to the House whether he did not lose it by his own informality and want of observing the Rules of the House?
MR. O'BRIENPerhaps I may now be permitted a word of explanation. In the first place, as to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, I venture to say that they are as much beside the question as they are out of Order. I did not, in raising the last question I put to you, Sir, make the statement he has attributed to me.
§ MR. SPEAKERI must tell the hon. Member that it would not be proper to allow a debate to arise on a question of this kind. The hon. Member has asked a question on a point of Order, and my ruling, has been given, as it is my duty to give it whenever a question of Order is raised.
MR. O'BRIENSir, an attack has been made upon me. Surely, two sen- 683 tences of explanation are not unpermissible. In raising the latter portion of my question I did not, in the least degree, intimate that in this particular instance there had been any collusion on the part of the Clerk at the Table. I simply put that as a possibility, as an illustration of the inconvenience that might arise if you were to rule that the Clerk at the Table, at his own discretion, having raised an objection to the wording of a Motion, would be able to deprive a Member who had given Notice of a Motion of his priority.
§ MR. SPEAKERIf the hon. Member wishes to withdraw his imputation against the Clerk at the Table, he is in Order and may proceed; but otherwise he is out of Order, and I must tell the hon. Member that he must not go any further.
MR. O'BRIENSir, I have made no imputation, and, therefore, I have no imputation to withdraw. With reference, Sir, to your statement that I mentioned that I would add the name of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to those that I would have to specify as guilty of felonious practices, permit me to say that there is no truth whatever in that statement. Quite the contrary, I pointed it out, as one of the inconveniences of obliging me to specify names, that I should have to lump together the names of a large number of officials in Ireland, coupling with the names of those who were guilty of felony those Irish officials who, in my estimation, have been guilty of screening them.
§ MR. HEALYI wish to ask you, Sir, for the information of the House, if you will be good enough to state whether a Member loses his priority of Motion if the terms of his Motion should be objected to by the Clerk at the Table, and other hon. Members intervene with Motions?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe Motion being out of Order, it was amended and put in after two other Notices had been handed in, which, consequently, took precedence of the Notice given by the hon. Member.
§ MR. PARNELLI wish to ask you, Sir, on the point of Order-—because the matter is of considerable importance to many hon. Members—whether it is necessary for a Member who has the first place in the ballot to give to the Chair 684 his Notice of Motion in the exact terms in which he intends to move it; and, further, whether it is not sufficient for a Member who has obtained the first place in the ballot to give Notice of his Motion at any time during the evening on which he had obtained that first place? It appears that my hon. Friend, according to your statement, has been deprived of the right which lie had obtained of the first place in the ballot by the fact that two other Members came before him on the same evening before he had perfected his Motion in accordance with the direction of the Chair. I can only say I think it is of importance that we should have information upon this matter, because I think that a great majority of Members entertain an. entirely different idea.
§ MR. SPEAKERI have only to say, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, that if the amended Notice had been given on the same day, it would have been in Order, and the order of precedence would not have been broken; but it was not given in until 5 o'clock on the following day, at which time two succeeding Motions had been handed in, and had thus obtained priority.
MR. O'BRIENI beg to give Notice that, whenever the Government applies for a Vote on Account, I shall call the attention of the House to the charges of felonious practices against James Ellis Ffrench, Inspector and Detective Director; Augustus Cornwall, Secretary of the Post Office in Dublin; and George Bolton, Crown Solicitor; and to the conduct of the Irish Government hi reference thereto.