HC Deb 18 April 1887 vol 313 cc1123-8
MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

I wish now to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury a Question arising out of a suggestion which emanated from the Chair on Friday night, apparently with the general concurrence of the House, and as to which I gave a Notice of Motion. I understand that certain communications ensued, and I desire now to ask, Whether the Government assent to a Motion to rescind the Order suspending the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy)? [Cries of "No!"]

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

I do not think, Sir, that any duty can be more disagreeable than that which falls to the Leader of the House when he has to move that an hon. Member of the House be suspended from the service of the House. I discharged that duty on Friday evening with the greatest possible regret; but the occasion seemed to require it, and with great regret it fell to me to submit that Motion to the House. The occasion was one, Sir, which, in your judgment, required that you should name the hon. and learned Member for North Longford, who had transgressed the Rules of the House in regard to the decencies of debate. It would be utterly out of the question, I apprehend, Sir, when no apology of any kind has been made for the transgression of the order and decency of debate, that any Motion of the kind suggested by the hon. Member would be entertained. I should not be in Order myself in making such a Motion, which could not be entertained, I apprehend, without the general concurrence of the House. Therefore, Sir—and I again express my deep regret at the circumstance which occurred—I regret to say it is not in my power to support any Motion of the kind suggested.

MR. SEXTON

May I ask you, Sir, whether the Leader of the House has correctly stated the law of the House, and whether it is competent for me to make a Motion?

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) on Friday night intimated that he would put a Notice on the Paper. No Notice has appeared on the Paper, and if Notice had been handed in at the Table it would have taken its place among the ordinary Notices of Motion, and would not have had precedence as a Question of Privilege, because it affected a Member of the House. It is not, therefore, competent for the hon. Gentleman to make any Motion for the rescinding of the vote of the House. No regular Notice has been given, and I repeat that if any Notice had been given the Notice would have come on in its regular course when the other Notices of Motion were called.

MR. SEXTON

Perhaps you will allow me, Sir, to explain how it happens that I did not place the Notice I had given upon the Paper. I understood that a Motion would be made by the Government on the subject, and I abstained from giving Notice in the unavoidable absence of my hon. and learned Friend, who was not permitted to enter the House. I beg to say, on his behalf, that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) had acted in his case as he acted towards me on Friday night, and had withdrawn the offensive charge which he made, my hon. and learned Friend would have withdrawn in his turn the language he had used. But, Sir, as the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh abstains from taking any initiative, I wish to inform the House that I have no instructions on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend to take any action in the matter.

MR. JACOB BRIGHT (Manchester, S.W.)

Sir, I should like to ask you one Question. Why is it that when two Members of the House have committed what may be called the same offence— [''No, no!"]—one is suspended and the other remains and occupies his seat in the House?

MR. SPEAKER

Under ordinary circumstances I should have declined to answer the Question which has been addressed to me by the hon. Gentleman, because it seems to imply that my action was not the same towards both hon. Members; but I am quite willing, under the special circumstances, to explain what passed. There was an essential difference between the two cases. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) did make a reflection which I stated at the time was in the nature of a very grave accusation against certain Gentlemen, but not directly against the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy). The hon. and learned Member for North Longford rose and made use of an expression which it was impossible for me to pass over, and I submitted his name for the House to take such action as it might think fit. Subsequently, the hon. and gallant Gentleman made a very direct reference indeed, specifying the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), and the hon. Member for West Belfast did also, under circumstances, I admit, of great provo- cation, make use of the expression which was offensive to the House; and, as I told him at the time, I should, of course, have to deal with him in the same way as I had been obliged to deal with the hon. and learned Member for North Longford. Some mutual explanations were given, and the offensive words were withdrawn. The two cases were, therefore, different. The hon. Member for West Belfast said something in which I suppose he referred to a communication which I had with him. I have no hesitation in saying what that communication was. I said that, while deeply regretting the circumstance as I did—indeed, I was deeply moved by it—I thought that the matter was out of my hands and rested with the House, and I was of opinion that such a grave offence had been committed against the House that it became the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford to make an unqualified apology to the House for the expression which he had permitted himself to use, and which had offended the dignity of the House and violated the decorum of debate. I said that apology should not be consequential upon any other explanation, but should be made frankly and freely by itself, and then I thought that the House, in 1he exercise of its judgment, might see its way to reinstate the hon. and learned Member for North Longford; and for all I knew, though I was not competent in any way to make any communication of the kind, nor did I do so, the hon. and gallant Gentleman might possibly offer some explanation showing that he made no direct reference to the hon. and learned Member for North Longford. That is exactly how the matter stands as far as I am concerned, and I leave the issue with the House.

MR. SEXTON

I wish to make an explanation. I did not, Sir, refer to you. I referred to an intimation, or rather to the expression of a hope, on the part of the Government. I think I shall be doing my duty if I now move that Mr. T. M. Healy be heard in his own behalf at the Bar.

MR. SPEAKER

That cannot be done for this reason. The Order under which I acted is one of summary procedure, and if an Order under the Summary Procedure Standing Order is to be reviewed immediately and debate ensues, then there is an end of the procedure which was intended to be summary. If the hon. Gentleman is authorized to say anything on the part of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford, I believe I am right in saying that the House will listen to him.

MR. SEXTON

I am authorized by my hon. and learned Friend to say that if the hon. and gallant Member will pursue towards him the course which he pursued towards me, my hon. and learned Friend will withdraw the expression.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian)

In this state of facts and the feeling that prevails generally in the House, both on account of the Chair and the House as well as on account of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford, there is something to be considered and something to be desired. I wish to put a Question directly to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh—Whether he is prepared to render any assistance to the House in its present position by any explanation or withdrawal of the expression used by him on a former evening with regard to this matter? [Cries of "No, no!"]

COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.)

rose amid cries of "Withdraw!" from the Irish Members. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said: The circumstance will be in the recollection of many Members of the House that I made a statement in the House to which the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) took exception. I felt, on consideration, that the statement I had made was one which the Rules of the House did not warrant me in making, and I rose before the event had assumed the aspect it did subsequently to make that admission; but I had not the opportunity of doing so owing to the unfortunate confusion that existed at the time. After that I distinctly stated, as you, Sir, are aware, that I withdrew the statement, which, however entirely I may have personally believed it, I was, nevertheless, incapable of substantiating by such facts as would bring conviction to the mind of the House. I never alluded at all to the hon. and learned Member for North Longford. In regard to the observation that was made personally to myself, that is in the hands of the House. The refusal of the hon. and learned Member to obey the dictates of the Chair is not a matter which concerns me personally, but it concerns the dignity of the House of Commons.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

Perhaps it is hardly necessary to carry the matter further; but I wish to be sure that there is no misunderstanding. Am I to understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, whatever his own personal belief may be—and I do not question his right to entertain any belief respecting myself or any other person—felt that he was not justified by the Rules of the House in making the statement he did, and that he rose for the purpose of saying so, but was prevented from making the explanation? Am I to understand from the hon. and gallant Gentleman that that is so?

COLONEL SAUNDERSON

My statement was that I never mentioned or alluded in any sense, directly or indirectly, to the hon. and learned Member for North Longford. [Cries of" Order!" and "Withdraw!"]

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

again rose amid cries of "Order '" The right hon. Gentleman said: Do I misapprehend or have I misstated the previous part of the answer of the hon. and gallant Member?

COLONEL SAUNDERSON

did not reply.

MR. SEXTON

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford resented the imputation cast upon Irish Members generally, and as the hon. and gallant Member does not withdraw the general charges he made, I am not in a position to go further, or offer any statement, on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

I have asked for an explanation without the smallest intention of conveying any offensive expression or idea. Am I to understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with whom I have always been on relations of courtesy, refuses to tell me whether I have rightly understood the former part of his answer?

COLONEL SAUNDERSON

I have stated distinctly and as clearly as I can my meaning, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will understand exactly the sense of the words I have used.