§ MR. WHALLEYI rise, Sir, to make a personal explanation in reference to what passed in this House yesterday, and I beg to say that I had no intention of disregarding your authority either on the first or the second of the two occasions on which I was called to Order, 751 and on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer based his Motion. In support of this disclaimer, I would ask leave to refer to the circumstances, which I think will show that, though your ruling me out of Order must be held to be right, and to which neither on the first nor the second occasion did I make the slightest comment or objection, yet neither on the first occasion nor the second could I be reasonably supposed to be aware that I was out of Order, still less that I was disregarding the authority of the Chair. On the first occasion I was speaking on a Motion for Adjournment, and you said, Sir, that the Question raised by me related to a matter on which I had twice previously put a Question in the House, and that upon a third occasion, when I desired to put a Question to the same effect, you ruled me out of Order, and you added that I was again repeating this breach of Order in attempting to raise that Question before the House. The Question to which I understood you to refer as having been twice put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, whether Her Majesty's Government had not separated itself from the other Powers of Europe. I submit with confidence that I could not have anticipated your ruling, Sir, on that point. I had put that Question twice, without receiving any definite reply, and I was stating that fact upon the Motion for Adjournment. In reference to your remark that on a third occasion I put the Question, and was ruled out of Order, I was not aware of that fact, otherwise than that a Question which I intended to put to the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Sandon), which had been printed in the Proceedings of this House, and as to which I had received a letter from the noble Lord, was without my knowledge withdrawn from the Paper. That Question was not the same as my Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, inasmuch as the noble Lord having stated that other European Powers had concurred with Her Majesty's Government in their views as to Russia, I proposed to ask what Powers had so concurred, other than that of the Vatican. Thus called to Order for the first time, I rose again, and asked whether I might be permitted to express my views in the form of a statement in the following words:—
Then I will not put the Question, but I will) if I am permitted to do so, take this opportunity 752 of making a statement in regard to this hostility —a kind of personal hostility—on the part of the Government towards the Emperor of Russia,whereupon you rose and said—I am compelled to call the hon. Member to Order a second time, and to pronounce him as having again disregarded the authority of the Chair.Again, Sir, I respectfully submit that although your ruling was and is open to no comment of objection, either then or now, yet your words imply an intentional and deliberate disregard of your authority. The circumstances show that it was wholly unintentional and unavoidable. All that I did was to ask permission to make a statement, thus showing that, strong as was my desire to make such statement, I awaited your permission to do so. You, Sir, not only withheld that permission, but declared me to be out of Order for asking it. Whether upon the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer I was, or was not, entitled to speak, I felt it to be my duty to call attention to a Motion which may come on hereafter. That is a question on which I do not presume now to speak; but on this matter of personal explanation, I trust I have not exceeded the privilege usually exercised by hon. Members in thus disclaiming any intention to disregard your authority, and giving reasons why I could not, in fact, have entertained any such intention.