RESOLUTIONS. (Hansard, 27 July 1877)

HC Deb 27 July 1877 vol 236 cc25-82 25

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
, who had given Notice to move the following Resolutions:— That, when a Member, after being twice declared out of Order, shall he pronounced by Mr. Speaker, or by the Chairman of Committees, as the case may be, to be disregarding the authority of the Chair, the Debate shall be at once suspended; and, on a Motion being made, in the House, that the Member be not heard during the remainder of the Debate, or during the sitting of the Committee, such Motion, after the Member complained of has been heard in explanation, shall be put without further Debate. That, in Committee of the whole House, no Member have power to move more than once, during the Debate on the same Question, either that the Chairman do report Progress or that that the Chairman do leave the Chair, nor to speak more than once to such Motion; and that no Member who has made one of those Motions have power to make the other on the same Question. said: Sir, in moving the Resolutions which I have placed on the Paper of the House, I hope to be able to make my remarks very briefly, and also, as I hope, temperately. I feel that this is not an occasion upon which we ought to allow ourselves to be led away by personal feeling, or by anything which is unworthy of the character of the great Assembly to which we belong; and I especially deprecate on the present occasion anything like animosity, or the exchange of personalities in the discussion. These Rules are really introduced with no other feeling than the desire to vindicate the character of the House of Commons, both as a great Assembly in which the business of the country is conducted, and also as a Body which has a place and position to maintain in the eyes of foreign countries and of the world. I am aware that any Resolutions that may be proposed with regard to the conduct of Business are capable of being represented as Resolutions which are likely to trench dangerously on the rights of minorities. That is a matter on which I feel very jealous, and on which, I believe, a large number of 26 Members of this House feel very jealous; and very justly, because it has been the distinguishing characteristic of this Assembly that it has been able for so many years, I may say centuries, to conduct Business of unparalleled importance and enormous extent with fewer limitations of the rights of minorities than exist in any other Assembly in the world. I earnestly hope, whatever may be our course, that we shall strive to maintain that high position; and I would add that I conscientiously believe that, in making these proposals, if they can be regarded as in any degree limitations for the moment of the rights of minorities, I am really and truly acting in the permanent defence of those rights; because I feel that nothing can expose them to so much danger as their being so frequently and so persistently exercised as to produce a re-action, and lead to the proposal and perhaps the adoption of measures that would seriously curtail them. That being the general feeling with which I approach the subject, I would draw the attention of the House to the two Resolutions which I have placed upon the Paper, and I would ask the House to notice the difference of the character of the two. The second Resolution—for I would speak of that first— is of the nature of a detailed regulation referring to a certain portion of the Business of this House. It is impossible, of course, that Business should be conducted in any Assembly, and especially in one so large and intelligent and so free as our House of Commons, without subjecting the proceedings to certain Rules of Order. Such Rules have from time to time been established for the conduct of the Business of the House, and we are all obliged to conduct our discussions subject to them, and to accommodate our proceedings to the restrictions they impose. But we cannot help observing that, as in the process of time the character of the Business changes, and a larger number of Members take part in the discussions—as circumstances change in the one way or the other—it is necessary for the convenience of the House that new Rules of a detailed character should be considered and adopted. The second of my Resolutions, then, is an attempt to introduce an amendment of detail into our Rules, which I think I shall be able to show is an improvement. But, Sir, I would now draw attention to the first of the two Resolutions, as being 27 one of a somewhat peculiar character; for it does not so much deal with the details of our procedure as with the affirmation of the principle—which, I think, is of the highest importance for the good conduct of Business—that the authority of the Chair must be maintained. I have heard it remarked, both out-of-doors and in this House, that not only would the changes we propose be inefficient, but that any changes would fail to prevent the vexatious obstruction of Business; because, if Members are bent upon finding means of obstruction, their ingenuity is sure to outrun the ingenuity of those who would frame Rules against them. I admit that if we had to go by nothing but the letter of our Rules, there would be something in that observation. But it is important that it should always be borne in mind by the Members of the House of Commons, and by those who speak of the House of Commons, that this Assembly is a living Assembly; that it is an Assembly which has powers and authority which it is able to exercise with a certain amount of freedom and discretion; and that it is not a Body so tied and bound by its Rules as to be the mere slave and servant of its own regulations—so far from that, it exercises its functions with great freedom, and uses its privileges without admitting the interference of any extraneous power, with a complete consciousness of its own dignity and high position. The authority that the House exercises collectively over its Members—and it is important that it should be reminded of it—is of a very powerful character. No hon. Member can say that so long as he keeps within the letter of a certain number of Rules which have been laid down, and which are to be found in the Orders of the House, he is altogether free from the exercise of authority on the part of the House. On the contrary, although the House proceeds with deliberation, with consideration, and with due regard to the feelings of its Members, it is to be borne in mind that it has, by its constitution, a real and living power and authority over its Members. Hon. Members must not forget the very wide limits within which that power has been exercised in time past, and may, if necessary, be exercised again. The House possesses great powers. Above other and inferior powers, the House has the supreme 28 power of expelling a Member; of imprisoning him for contempt; of censuring him; of compelling his attendance, and of punishing him if he fail to attend, or of dispensing with attendance. Even now, nothing is more common than for hon. Members to ask leave of absence—implying that they are subject to the general authority of the House, and cannot absent themselves from its proceedings without its sanction. And so in one way or another the House is continually exercising authority over its Members. I say this because it is necessary in order to show that in the proposal I now make I only propose that, under certain circumstances, the House should exercise over its Members an authority far short of that which I have shown it has the power and may occasionally require in practice to exercise. What is proposed in the first Resolution is that in certain circumstances a Member should be put to silence for a certain very limited period; and hon. Members will see that this is a power which is very far short indeed of the extreme powers to which I have referred. It is a power which has not been exercised of late years, but there are precedents not a few in the early history of Parliament which I do not think it necessary to lay in detail before the House, of Members having been, by order of the House, put to silence for a certain time. Having established, as I think I have, to the satisfaction of the House the doctrine that to do this is, and must necessarily be, within the authority of the House, I would, instead of dwelling on precedents or comparing one case with another, rather ask the House to consider whether what I propose is or is not a proposal reasonable in itself and expedient for the despatch of Business. The proposal which I make is this— That when a Member, after being twice declared out of Order, shall be pronounced by Mr. Speaker or by the Chairman of Committees, as the case may be, to be disregarding the authority of the Chair, the Debate shall be at once suspended, and, on a Motion being made, in the House, that the Member be not heard during the remainder of the Debate or during the sitting of the Committee, such Motion, after the Member complained of has been heard in explanation shall be put without further Debate. I apprehend that it is not necessary for me to go into particulars or to supply 29 illustrations. I am anxious to avoid doing so—I wish to make this proposal as impersonal as possible, and to abstain as far as possible from referring to the specific conduct of any particular Member on any particular occasion. But I will put before the House an account of the difficulties which from time to time arise. Sir, the position of yourself and of the Chairman of Committees is one of very great importance and of very great delicacy. There is an old story which hon. Members are familiar with. A former Speaker having stated in the House that if a certain Member did not conform to the Rules of Order he should be obliged to name him, was asked what would happen if he should name him? and he is reported to have answered—"It is impossible for me to say what would happen." But there is very little doubt that if you, Sir, were on any occasion reduced to the necessity of naming an hon. Member, the course which would have to be followed is one with which you would be found perfectly familiar; there would be no question at all that the conduct of that particular Member would be brought by you under the notice of the House, and that the House would then take such steps by way of censure or otherwise as the occasion required. But we all feel that it is most desirable that the discretionary power of the Speaker should be kept as far as possible in reserve, and that however slight the indications on the part of the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees that a Member was transgressing the bounds of Order, they should at once be attended to, so that the catastrophe to which I have adverted should be avoided as far as possible. Therefore I think it desirable when the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, calls the attention of an hon. Member to the fact that he is transgressing the Rules of Order, his ruling should be effectively and universally admitted. There are certain offences against the Rules of Debate with regard to which there can be no doubt. If anyone in the heat of debate uses language which is coarse, imputes motives, or is personally offensive to any other Member, or directly disrespectful to the House, there can be no doubt about the matter; the words are submitted to the House, and the judgment of the House is passed unless the Member withdraws 30 or explains them. But there may be cases in which, without using language in itself offensive, a Member may pursue conduct so entirely subversive of the proceedings of the House as to render it necessary for the Speaker or Chairman to call him to Order, to remind him that he is travelling beyond the Rules of Debate, and to endeavour to bring him back to those Rules; and unless the Speaker is supported by the sense of the House and enabled to enforce his ruling by a judicious exercise of authority, his power of checking disorderly discussions must be of a very limited character. Though I said I would wish as far as possible to avoid personal references, I will so far allude to the question which was raised on Wednesday last as to point out that the words I took notice of on the part of the hon. Member for Meath were words which seemed to demand the attention of the House, not because they were un-Parliamentary, for they were not, but because in my judgment, and in the judgment of others who were present, they, taken in connection with the language used by the hon. Member for some time before, indicated that he was pursuing a course which was intended to obstruct the Business of the House. I do not wish for one moment to refer further to that, but I take it as an illustration of what may frequently happen—that Members, without using coarse, offensive, or un-Parliamentary words, may be betrayed into language which is against Order, because it is wandering from the subject which is before the House. Upon that point I would like to read a short extract from a Report presented to this House in 1848 by a Select Committee of the very highest authority. It was one of the Committees which sat on Public Business, and this is the language which it used— But it is not so much on any new rules, especially restrictive rules, that your Committee would desire to rely for the prompt and efficient despatch of Business by the House. The increased Business calls for increased consideration on the part of Members in the exercise of their individual privileges. Your Committee would desire to rely on the good feeling of the House and on the forbearance of its Members,"— I would call particular attention to what follows:— And on the general acquiescence in the enforcement by the Speaker of that established 31 Rule of the House which requires that Members should strictly confine themselves to matters immediately pertinent to the subject of debate. That is a Rule which is spoken of as "an established Rule" in the Report of a Committee of the highest authority, consisting, among other distinguished names, of those I will read to the House —Lord John Russell, Sir Robert Peel, Sir George Grey, Sir James Graham, Mr. Hume, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Goulburn, Sir Robert Inglis, Sir William Heath-cote, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Henley, the only Member of that Committee surviving to this House, and the Chairman, Mr. Evelyn Denison, who for many years commanded the respect of the House as Speaker in that Chair. I call attention to that passage because of the clear manner in which it lays down the principle that the Rules of the House require that Members should strictly confine themselves to matters immediately pertinent to the subject of debate. And here I would point out—what it is scarcely necessary to do—how difficult it is, indeed how much discretion and firmness it requires on the part of the Speaker or Chairman, to stop a Member exactly at the time when he is beginning to travel beyond that Rule without unduly limiting him while he is still acting within its spirit. It is very difficult to lay down on paper any rule by which you can say this or that is not pertinent to the subject of debate, and it is necessary that the Chairman should exercise his own judgment with discretion and firmness, and that he should be supported by the House in the judgment he has arrived at. It is for the purpose of giving effect to that principle that I propose this first Resolution. The Speaker or Chairman of Committees will in the first instance give warning to the Member who is speaking that he is travelling beyond the limits of debate, and entering into matter not pertinent to the subject under discussion; and then, if the Member persists in disregarding his warning, it will become the duty of the Speaker or Chairman to call the attention of the House to the matter. The next stage will be this—the ruling of the Speaker must be taken up by some Member of the House who, having been present and having known the course which was pursued and thinking the occasion demands it, makes a Motion that the Member 32 who has so disregarded the warning of the Speaker shall be precluded simply from speaking any further—not from voting—in the debate in which he has so transgressed the rules of Order; and after the Member has been afforded an opportunity of explanation it will be put to the House, without further discussion, whether he shall be put to silence for that particular debate. Whatever may be said of its principle, the limits imposed by that Resolution are such as to make it a very mild rule indeed. It is perhaps rather open to criticism on the ground of feebleness; but I look on its feebleness as in some sense its strength. What we have really to rely on is the good sense and good feeling of the House; and you have a better prospect of making a successful appeal to the good sense and good feeling of the House by measures which are mild and not provocative than by dealing very severely with hon. Members who may transgress our Rules. If you attempted to deal summarily and in an arbitrary manner to inflict a severe punishment on a Member who perhaps ignorantly, or, it might be recklessly, transgressed our Rules, without any intentional malice, you might evoke sympathy in his behalf, which would do more harm than your Rules would do good. I hope the House will be prepared to accept this Rule, and admit it, at all events, as an experimental Rule, for the remainder of the present Session. We have not thought it right, or at all justifiable, to come down and at so short a Notice to make proposals in the nature of Standing Orders. Alterations in the Standing Orders ought to be very carefully and deliberately considered. I have already said that it is our intention to give our best study and consideration to this subject during the Recess, and to make a proposition which we would not attempt to propose to the House as a whole, but which should be submitted to a carefully selected Committee for full consideration when we next assemble. I believe the time has come for such consideration, and I trust the House may accede to that proposal. But for the present, and with a view to the exigencies of the moment— to carry through the Business of the Session and to prevent wrangles and disputes unseemly and most injurious to our reputation, I hope and trust the 33 House will accept and support this Resolution. I will not enter at any length on the second Resolution; I shall have occasion perhaps to make some remarks upon it when it comes to be put substantively. The two Resolutions stand apart, but I think the second is sufficiently explained to render it unnecessary for me now to enter upon it. I would only say this—that it is intended practically to introduce into Committees the same rule which actually prevails in our debates in the House, and that it would have the effect of restricting the right of Members to make repeated Motions for reporting Progress on the same Question. I am aware that that is an interference with the rights of minorities which may be regarded with some jealousy; and I should not be surprised if objection is taken to part with that right. But I would remind the House again of what I said at the beginning, that if the rights of minorities are pushed too far and to such an extent as to render the House intolerant of them, some much more stringent Rules may come to be adopted, and we may be obliged to take up the practice which prevails in some foreign Assemblies of a compulsory closing of the debate, or placing restrictions upon it of that kind, which I, for one, should view with very great reluctance indeed. In these circumstances I hope the House will accept these Resolutions in the spirit in which they are proposed. I hope we shall be spared anything in the nature or an acrimonious debate. I hope also that in any observations which may be made hon. Members will bear in mind as a cardinal consideration that this proposal is made simply for the present time—not as a permanent rule, but with a distinct understanding that there will be a review, at an early period in a spirit of candour and in a judicial spirit, of the whole body of the Rules of this House. I will only say, in conclusion, that what I look to more than anything else is the spirit in which our Rules are worked. The old Roman saying is applicable here— Quid leges sine moribus Vanæ proficiunt? Any Rules that may be adopted, if worked in a spirit of captiousness and obstruction, would undoubtedly work 34 badly. On the other hand, almost any Rules would be found sufficient in an assembly of business-like men if worked in a spirit of consideration for the feelings of others and a due sense of the dignity of the body to which they belong. I cannot imagine that there is any Member of this House who regards the history and thinks of the past glories of this Assembly who will hesitate to assist in maintaining unimpaired the reputation that has been handed down to us. I beg, Sir, to propose the first Resolution.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That, when a Member, after being twice declared out of Order, shall he pronounced by Mr. Speaker, or by the Chairman of Committees, as the case may be, to be disregarding the authority of the Chair, the Debate shall be at once suspended; and, on a Motion being made, in the House, that the Member be not heard during the remainder of the Debate, or during the sitting of the Committee, such Motion, after the Member complained of has been heard in explanation, shall be put without further Debate."— (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

§ MR. SANDFORD
said, he rose in no spirit of hostility to propose an Amendment to the Resolution. He had the strongest objection to altering the Rules of the House—nothing could justify it but the sternest necessity—he would rather support a proposition for adopting steps against an individual Member than admit any interference with the privileges of the House. They should take proceedings against the Member who was wrong, and not against the Rules which were right. If a Member were expelled he might appeal to his constituents, who might re-elect him; but against the punishment proposed by this Resolution he would have no appeal whatever. He did not, however, offer any alternative proposal, because it was necessary whatever proposal was offered should command as large an adhesion as possible; but believing that as it stood the Resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not commend itself to general approval, he proposed to add these words— But such Motion shall not be considered carried unless it receive the support of three-fourths of the Members present. He could recollect a time when minorities were not respected—when parties ran high, and there was a very general wish to silence some Members who was 35 thought to be rather a dangerous opponent. Up to the present Parliament the Conservatives never had a majority, and it was very possible they might again be in a minority; it was therefore peculiarly the duty of the Conservative Party to protect the rights of minorities, and though some hon. Members might from a sense of Party feeling vote for these Resolutions—feeling in their hearts all the time that they were proposals to which they objected, the time might come when these Resolutions would be turned against them, and they would find they had made a mistake. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN
, in seconding the Amendment, said, the question which had been raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not one which affected the Government alone or the Party which sat behind it; it was one which affected the whole House, its honour, and its character. It would, he thought, be idle affectation to say that that character had not suffered very materially from the scenes which had been enacted day after day and night after night within those walls, and which had been, in his opinion, correctly described as a scandal. People out-of-doors spoke of the House and behaved towards its Members in a very different way now from that in which they did when he first became a Member of it. That, considering how much of the influence and power of the House was derived from the sympathy and respect of the people at large—and he included in those words the people of Ireland and Scotland as well as of England—was, he thought, a great misfortune. But it was not merely the character of the House which was at stake; it was that of our whole legislation. The time which used formerly to be devoted to discussing and amending the details of a measure was now wasted in declamation about the wrongs of Ireland and a variety of other topics quite irrelevant to the subject on hand. The result was that, whatever little legislation there was was carried on at hours when half the House was in bed, and the other half ought to be. It could scarcely be matter for wonder in these circumstances that the legislation of the country had become day by day more and more unsatisfactory—he might say more slovenly, 36 as lawyers knew to their cost, and still more, he was afraid, to the cost of their clients. Now, that was a state of things which could not be permitted to continue, but which must be put down at any price. He was anxious to avoid making any personal allusion; but when he found an hon. Gentleman putting down 14 Notices for the rejection of Bills relating to every variety of subjects, and when he heard another hon. Member called to Order four times in the course of one debate, and yet persevere in pursuing the same line of argument, and, without mincing the matter, adopting an orgaized course of wilful obstruction to the progress of Public Business—

§ MR. PARNELL
rose to Order. He had not intended to take part in the present discussion, but he thought it his duty to ask the Speaker, in view of his ruling a few days before that wilful and persistent obstruction of the Business of the House amounted to a contempt of the House, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was in Order in charging a Member of the House with wilful obstruction, and whether, if a Member of the House were guilty of wilful obstruction, the proper course would not be to bring the Member deemed to be so guilty before the judgment of the House?

§ MR. SPEAKER
felt bound to say that, in his opinion, the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh were relevant to the subject-matter before the House. If the hon. and learned Member had spoken by name of any Member and of his conduct on a previous occasion, he should have deemed it to be his duty to inform him that it was irregular to call the attention of the House to proceedings that had taken place in a former debate during the current Session.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN
regretted that he should have been betrayed for a moment into any observations which might seem to be of a personal character. He was as averse as any hon. Member could be to legislating on the question before the House in a panic. He felt with the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) that there was great danger attending any interference with the venerable fabric of the Rules of the House. They had for centuries been sufficient to guide and control its proceedings—not so much, perhaps, because of their intrinsic value, 37 as of the good sense and good taste of its Members. These Rules were made by gentlemen for gentlemen; and it was a source of pride to think that they would continue to govern their conduct. But, be that as it might, when the Leader of the House, who was responsible in so great a degree for its action, told them that the Business of the House and the Government could not be carried on without some alteration of its Rules, he felt himself bound, utterly irrespective of all Party considerations, to give him a loyal and hearty support;—at the same time, he had much pleasure in seconding the Amendment of the hon. Member for Maldon, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, he thought, see was a very reasonable one. The Resolution with that Amendment would do nothing more than give to the Speaker the power which every President of an Assembly ought to have to prevent any of its Members from stultifying its discussions and nullifying the objects for which it existed. He could not, in conclusion, help expressing a hope that by at least an overwhelming majority hon. Members would on the present occasion show their determination to maintain the authority of the Speaker, inasmuch as in doing so they would be also upholding the true dignity and usefulness of the House of Commons.

§ Amendment proposed, To add, at the end of the Question, the words "but such Motion shall not he considered to be carried unless it receive the support of three-fourths of the Members present."—(Mr. Sandford.)

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, he wished to submit to the House two considerations which were, in his opinion, conclusive against the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Maldon. His hon. Friend had argued the question at issue to a certain degree as if the rights of minorities were involved in the first Resolution proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He, however, did not so understand it. It did not touch the rights of the minority, because no minority had any vested title to disregard the ruling of the Speaker. It was, in fact, simply a Resolution to maintain the authority of the Speaker; and, that being so, he could not see why a right should be given to a minority of one-fourth to sustain them in disregarding that authority—he thought a simple 38 majority ought to be sufficient to uphold the authority of the Speaker. There was a second objection on which Members might entertain different opinions—he hardly thought they could do so on the first. He confessed he was not disposed for the first time to introduce the principle of three-fourths majorities. They had never had such a Rule, and he was surprised that the hon. Member for Maldon, who wished to appear so very conservative of their Rules, should have proposed one of the most radical innovations of those Rules that had ever been attempted. There was nothing in that Resolution itself which was half so great a novelty as that Amendment. He adhered himself to the old principle of majorities, and that was the second reason why he could not support the Amendment.

THE O'CONOR DON
apologized for intruding on the discussion thus early; but, as he believed the Resolutions had been very hastily framed and would not accomplish the object for which they were intended, he wished, before the House adopted them, that they should consider carefully the position in which they were placed, and the period of the Session at which these Resolutions were brought forward. He desired to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House why they were considering that question on July 27, and within a few days of the end of the Session? It was evidently not with the view of making permanent alterations in the procedure of the House, but to meet what was considered a sudden and pressing evil. They had been told that the object of the first Resolution was to uphold the authority of the Chair; but he asked, had the authority of the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees really been called in question by any hon. Member. And if the authority of the Chair had been called in question, had it not always been the rule of the House, without any vote whatever, to support that authority? The Resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of supporting the authority of the Chair, was likely to take a quite contrary direction, because it said that when a Member had been called to Order, and disregarded the Speaker or the Chairman's authority, the question was to be submitted to the House. If it was to be' so submitted, he presumed it would not be submitted as a 39 foregone conclusion: if there was to be a vote, the vote, he supposed, might he given one way or the other; and if the majority should vote that the Speaker was wrong in his opinion, would that support his authority? Even if there were a considerable minority on such occasions, it seemed to him the authority of the Chair would be weakened. When a Member was declared from the Chair to have been disorderly, the action of the House should follow instantaneously, without any vote whatever. He did not sympathize in any way with the obstruction which had been offered to Public Business. There was no more dangerous course in the interest of the minority itself than pushing its rights too far; and it was because he wished to preserve the rights of minorities, that he deeply deplored the course taken this Session by some hon. Members who came from his country, the Representatives of which must always be in a minority in that House; but he did not think that the Resolution would curb any hon. Gentleman who might desire to put in force the sort of obstruction they had seen lately. And, while he condemned that obstruction, he thought the action of those hon. Members had been very much exaggerated. As to the number of Amendments put down to Bills in the name of a certain hon. Gentleman, that hon. Gentleman had told them over and over again that his object in doing so was to prevent those Bills from coming on at an hour when they could not be properly discussed. At the same time, he thought that practice had been carried too far and Business had been obstructed in a manner which he regretted; but those hon. Members ought not to be accused of more than they had really done. It seemed to him that the House was proceeding on an entirely wrong line in passing a Resolution purporting to give the Speaker additional strength, when no such additional strength was required. He believed that if the Speaker declared that any of those hon. Members had been guilty of contempt of his ruling, the House would unanimously uphold his authority, and every one of these hon. Gentlemen would bow to his decision.

§ MR. ANDERSON
said, they had had four speeches delivered on the present Motion, and each of the four placed a different meaning on the Resolutions of 40 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which proved the inexpediency of dealing with this question in so hasty a way. It was quite clear that they had been produced under feelings of irritation, caused by a most unjustifiable course of proceeding, and the House by adopting them would allow their feelings to carry them beyond what was prudent. He was entirely opposed to the proposed changes in the Rules of that House—to making a permanent change to remedy a temporary evil. The result of passing these Resolutions would be to give a triumph to certain Members whose conduct had compelled the alteration, and who were already regarded by some of their countrymen as heroes. If he were in the place of either the hon. Member for Meath, or the hon. Member for Cavan, he should support the Resolution, because it was calculated to secure the object at which they were aiming—they would be able to obstruct the Public Business just as much as they had hitherto done. The first Resolution was not at all necessary for supporting the authority of the Chair, but went rather in a contrary direction. He asked the House to consider what evil might result from the establishment of such a Rule in the case of a weak Speaker, or a Speaker who might be under the influence of the Government? In hands different from those of the present Speaker it might be used in a very tyrannical way to the oppression of a minority. With respect to the second Resolution, it would be utterly powerless to prevent obstruction.

§ MR. RITCHIE
rose to Order, and asked whether it was regular for the hon. Member to speak on the second Resolution, when an Amendment to the first was before the House?

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, the hon. Member was not out of Order; but it would be a more convenient course to deal with the first Resolution first.

§ MR. ANDERSON
said, he was only following the example of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in referring to the second Resolution. When that Resolution came before the House, he should be prepared to show conclusively that it would be utterly powerless to stop obstructions.

§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY
said, the House already possessed ample power to deal with the infraction of the spirit 41 of its Rules which it was the object of these Resolutions to stop. He was certain that if any hon. Member persistently disregarded the authority of the Speaker, no Members of the House would support him in such conduct. He had himself heard the Speaker inform an hon. Member that if he persisted in pursuing a particular line of argument he should be compelled to bring his conduct under the notice of the House; and in all such cases hon. Members had at once yielded on receiving that warning. There was, therefore, ample authority now to deal with infractions of the Rules, and it had never been ineffectual. The Resolution had its origin in a sense of irritation at what was called a course of obstruction to Public Business offered by certain hon. Members this Session. But, logically considered, it had merely been the expression of a determination on their part that certain questions should be sufficiently debated. To some extent that course of proceeding had produced excellent results. He felt certain that the conduct of the hon. Members for Meath and Cavan with regard to the Prisons Bill had resulted in the greatest benefit to the people of these Kingdoms. Doubtless those hon. Members had pursued a course of obstruction with reference to other measures with which he could not sympathize; but that system of obstruction did not commence with the hon. Members for Meath and Cavan, but with Her Majesty's Government in proposing the half-past 12 o'clock Rule, which was unfair to private Members upon the face of it, and which he believed would have to be abrogated. By means of that Rule hon. Members who opposed a measure introduced by a private Member could, by merely giving Notice of opposition, prevent its being carried, without once coming down to contest it upon its merits. When that Rule was applied by Government to the obstruction of the Business of private Members, it was not wonderful that the hon. Members for Meath and Cavan should think that what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander, and that the Rule ought to be applied as well to the measures of the Government. His complaint was that the hon. Members had taken that course without consulting those with whom they were accustomed to act. Had they taken the step of consulting those who sat near them upon the subject, their 42 conduct would at all events have assumed a respectability by which it was not now distinguished, and. would have deprived it of the aspect of caprice and factiousness which it now appeared to have. The proceedings of those hon. Members, however, with regard to the South Africa Bill he could not at all approve of, it being the duty of the minority after they had tested their power to yield to the majority. It would be exactly the same if they had a Parliament on the other side of the water. Did those hon. Members think for a moment that an Irish Parliament would have allowed them to pursue such a line of obstruction of a personal character after full deliberation and division? In putting down crime and outrage—though there was little of that now—they might depend upon it, it would be put down by an Irish Parliament with a much stronger hand than could be done by a Parliament sitting in England: and obstructive conduct in an Irish Parliament would be suppressed much more speedily than could be done in an English Parliament. If this Resolution was directed against particular Members for the course they had pursued with regard to the South Africa Bill, and because they had persistently disregarded the ruling of the Speaker, it was unnecessary, because every Member of the House would gladly silence and ostracise any Member who should be guilty of such conduct. With regard to the effect of this Resolution, if carried, it would be merely nil—his hon. Friends were far too astute to allow themselves to be entangled in its meshes—they would be conspicuous for their graceful and eloquent submission, and would yield themselves deferentially to the ruling of the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees, as the case might be. The question of the policy of these Resolutions, however, was an entirely different matter. He and the other hon. Members who advocated Home Rule had come to that Parliament pledged to carry out, under the leadership of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, a policy of wise conciliation. And what had been the result? That, with one exception, not a single Home Rule measure had been passed. The Irish Members had been encouraged to bring forward Bills, and they had introduced measures to assimilate the laws of the two countries, but in vain. University education was dear to many who took, 43 no part in the Home Rule movement; but this subject fared no better than others. These obstructions would have the effect of producing obstruction of a different character in future. The Irish people were tired of useless conciliation, and, if the House did not arouse itself, means would be found to enforce such debates on Irish questions as would induce the House to consider Irish matters in a different spirit. He did not mean this in any way as a threat, for he honoured the House, and considered it a privilege to belong to it; but it must not be supposed that the Irish people were as anxious as the House to put down Irish Members. If it entered into war with any of them needlessly, it would needlessly give them allies so long as they kept within due bounds. Well, it would not be within due bounds, it would not be in good taste to violate the order of the Speaker or of the Chairman of Ways and Means: but it was within their right to insist on measures of justice for Ireland, and the House would be greatly mistaken if it supposed that there was not the most intense sympathy in Ireland with the course of conduct pursued by the hon. Members for Meath and Cavan, in so far as they insisted that there should be full and ample discussion upon all public questions connected with Ireland.

§ MR. SERJEANT SIMON
said, they were all agreed that some means must be taken to put an end to the obstruction to Public Business which had been going on for some time; but the Resolutions now proposed would not effect that object; they would not prevent long speeches, the reading by the hour of extracts from Blue Books that had little or no relation to the question under discussion, nor the repetition of attempts to count out the House, when it was well known that there were Members enough in the building to make a quorum. If a debate were suspended under the Resolution, the moving of a Resolution to silence or suspend the offending Member would be entirely an open question; and if the Motion were rejected, in what position would the Speaker or the Chairman be placed? So far from his authority being upheld, it would be set at nought; and such a state of things, so far from being impossible, was not even improbable under certain circumstances and at certain periods of the evening. If a Member who disregarded the ruling of 44 the Chair was guilty of contempt, there was already the power—a power inherent in the House—to take notice of and deal with the offence, and it would be far more effective to exercise that power than to supersede it by this Resolution. Above all, it would be far wiser to deal with individual cases as they arose, than disturb the well-recognized Rules of the House, by introducing new principles, which might become dangerous precedents in the future. For these reasons he believed the first Resolution to be unnecessary, and likely to be ineffective to prevent waste of time.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
objected to that part of the Resolution which proposed that the decision of the House on the conduct of an hon. Member should be taken "without debate." Let the House consider the responsibility this would cast upon the Speaker or Chairman. He was to decide that an hon. Member was out of Order without specifying in what respect; and if there were to be no debate, there would be no means of ascertaining on what ground the decision was based, and a division might have to be taken hastily out of deference to the Chair on grounds not generally understood by the House itself. The Resolution, if carried in its present form, would invest the Speaker or Chairman with a very onerous responsibility, and would, very probably, place the House in a false position. He had known instances in which a Speaker had given opinions which did not become rulings, because subsequently the Speaker had seen fit to change his declarations, and this Resolution would shut off such an. opportunity of correction. But the matter was of less importance, because it was understood the Resolution was to be temporary. He could not understand why they should not adhere to the old Rule, that the words objected to should be taken down; because, if they were, the House would proceed upon something definite: but, if a Member was to be suspended because the Speaker objected to something which was not recorded, the House would be placed entirely in the discretion of the Speaker, unless his ruling were rejected—in which case he would be placed in a very awkward position. As it would be dangerous to the authority of the Chair and embarrassing to the House to put the Motions without debate, he should, when the proper time arrived, move the omis- 45 sion of the words "without debate" from the Resolution.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, it was not competent on the present occasion for the hon. Member to introduce any Amendment into the original Resolution, except by way of addition.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, it was a question whether the power proposed to be vested in the House should not be, to some extent, qualified. As to the observation of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), as to the power of majorities, and his objection to the protection of minorities, he must remark that the right of a minority was upheld by an institution which was older than that House—he meant the institution of trial by jury, which required absolute unanimity before conviction. His hon. and learned Friend said the authority of the Speaker should be upheld even by a majority of one. He (Mr. Courtney) was quite sure the authority of the Speaker would in all cases be upheld unanimously; but the real question before the House was, not whether the authority of the Speaker should be upheld, but whether a certain specific way of attaching a penalty to a disregard of that authority should be adopted. He thought the adoption of this particular penalty should be guarded in some such way as was suggested by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Maldon.

§ MR. CALLAN
observed that when a Member's words had been taken down in Committee Progress was reported, and the Chairman reported the words to the Speaker, having no power himself to declare a Member in contempt. But this Resolution would give the Chairman of Committees a power in that respect equal to the power which the House entrusted to its Speaker. He would strongly oppose giving to the Chairman of Committees power which he would be happy to give to the Speaker, because the Speaker was well known to be above Party influence, and it was equally well known that the Chairmen of Committees were generally strong Party men. As an illustration of the danger of giving such power to a Party man, he would mention an incident of recent occurrence in which he was himself concerned. Within the last week he was called to Order by the Chairman of Committees, and an ex-Chairman pointed out that he 46 had not withdrawn the words to which exception had been taken. He was then, in the most peremptory manner, called upon by the Chairman of Committees to withdraw the expression, and he was under the painful necessity of withdrawing whatever words he had used that might be open to objection, though, for the life of him, he could not understand what words he had used that were considered out of Order. Afterwards, when he (Mr. Callan) spoke to him on the subject, the Chairman of Committees told him he had not heard any words that were out of Order, and apologized to him in the Lobby, but did not express any regret in the House at the injustice he had done him. With that incident fresh in his recollection, he would oppose in the most determined manner any proposition for giving the Chairman of Committees a power, which he did not possess in the most remote degree, to declare that a Member was disregarding the authority of the Chair, and to call for a vote of the House, without debate, as to whether that Member should be silenced during the remainder of the debate.

§ MR. RAIKES
I had hoped it would not be necessary for me to take part in this discussion, for I thought it would be more becoming if I did not offer any observation on the propriety of the proposed new Rule, which, in the opinion of some hon. Members, is supposed in some degree to enhance the powers of the Chairman of Committees, which office I have the honour to hold. But after the observations of the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan), the House will perhaps expect that I should say a word or two upon a subject personally affecting myself, which has been raised by the hon. Gentleman. In the first place, I think it would not be desirable, that on an occasion like this, I should attempt to vindicate my conduct in the Chair. It has always been my desire in that capacity to show my respect, not merely to the Party with which I have the honour of being connected, but to the House, whose officer I am. In that I have only followed a long line of much more distinguished Predecessors, such as my right hon. Colleague the Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson), whose example I have had the opportunity of observing. But with regard to the particular case to which the hon. 47 Member for Dundalk has thought proper to advert, it is a fact that I called the hon. Member to Order for certain observations which, as they reached the Chair, appeared to be contrary to the Rules observed in Committees of the House. I remember the words very distinctly, and no doubt the hon. Member for Dundalk also does. I understood him to say, speaking of another hon. Member, that "he had acted candidly for him." That appeared to me a most offensive personal expression. It seems, however, from what afterwards transpired, that, owing to some imperfection in my hearing of the words used by the hon. Member, or from some indistinctness in the hon. Gentleman's utterance, he had used an entirely opposite expression—for he really said, "uncandidly for him." The hon. Member, as he says, explained this to me in the Lobby; and I told the hon. Member that, if I had so understood him at first, I should not have called him to Order. Being anxious to observe those courtesies, which I wish were more universally observed by Members in the House, I dare say that I did not scruple to express at that time, in conversation with the hon. Member, my regret. But when the hon. Member comes to this House and talks about an apology made to him, but complains that I did not express in the House any regret for the injustice I had done him, I think the House will agree that such an exchange of personal and private observations in the Lobby is not to be brought before the House, and that if the hon. Member had wished to challenge my conduct, he should have raised the question, not in a general debate, but specifically before the House. Before sitting down, I can only say that I have had the good fortune of dealing with many and different Members of the House without my conduct having been before exposed to such a construction as that which the hon. Member has put upon it.

§ MR. CALLAN
, in explanation, said the conversation in the Lobby was not in the slightest degree private, but, on the contrary, of a most public character.

§ SIR WILLIAM FRASER
hoped that when the conduct of the Chairman of Committees was to be called in question, it would be done in a formal manner and in the House, in accordance with the Rules of the House.

§ MR. WHALLEY
said, that upon this question of Order he had had the most painful experience; but whenever he had come under the correction of the Chairman of Committees, it had never crossed his mind for a moment that that hon. Gentleman was actuated by any motive other than such as became his position. Instead of having any substantial reason to complain of the Chairman's ruling, he had on many occasions been grateful for correction when unconsciously and unintentionally he was wandering from the subject.

§ DR. WARD
asked, Whether it was competent for an hon. Member to move any change in the wording of the Resolution?

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, if the Amendment were withdrawn the Resolution would be open to alteration.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER
said, if the House would allow him to address himself as calmly as he could to the question of the censure to which those with whom he acted had been subjected that evening, he would endeavour to state his position in regard to the Resolution proposed by the Government. That House, regarded from his standpoint as a politician, was not properly the Parliament of the United Kingdom. With the views he entertained of the constitutional authority of the people of Ireland, he was not satisfied with his position as an Irish Representative in that House. He could not regard with pleasurable feelings the necessity of coming over from Ireland and remaining in London during six months of every year in order that he might have the opportunity — not of taking part in legislation for Ireland, but that he might have the opportunity occasionally of calling attention to the grievances under which Ireland laboured, and going home at the end of the Session to tell his constituents that it had been out of his power to accomplish anything for them. Regarding his position in that light, his presence there was a disagreeable necessity to him, and he did not intend to vote Aye or Noe upon either of the Resolutions, because he knew that the House of Commons would come to a decision upon the question without the slightest regard to any opinion that he or any other Representative of Ireland might put forward who occupied his time and 49 employed his opportunities for the purpose of giving effect to the views and wishes of the Irish people. Their English Friends on both sides of the House might do as they pleased in this particular, and he had no doubt that when they had succeeded in diminishing the freedom at present allowed to Irish representatives, they would discover that they had not succeeded in the slightest degree in diminishing their hostility to the English government of Ireland, or in their determination to resist every one of their bad measures. So long as they saw the benches on the Ministerial side occupied by Gentlemen who were opposed to the interests of Ireland he should embrace every opportunity of hurling them from power. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had quoted the opinion of the late Speaker (Mr. Denison) in support of his first Resolution; but, in his evidence before the Select Committee on Public Business in 1871 the Speaker (Mr. Denison) dwelt particularly upon the inconvenience, the unreasonableness, and, he did not hesitate to say, the almost insanity of the Sittings of the House after midnight. But, after all, the Resolutions now proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not restrict the power of Irish Members to resist his measures as long as they believed them to be opposed to the public good. It had been said with some truth by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) that the House of Commons had ceased to be a deliberative Assembly. With the progress of wealth a number of administrative and other questions had arisen with which the House was unable to cope, and these questions might be expected to go on multiplying. Parliament had done nothing to grapple with this difficulty, and night after night Members were summoned to take part in divisions on matters which there had been no time to examine. He had not been six months in the House before the absurdity struck him so forcibly that he addressed a Question to the Government on the subject. The older Members had become accustomed to it; but new Members were much struck by the inability of the House to get through its Business, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had come down with a proposal to develop the power of local go- 50 vernment, in order to relieve the House of Commons of the turmoil of grappling with the multitude of questions that came before it, he would have been doing something to neutralize the power of Irish Members. He begged to call attention to the loose and indistinct manner in which the first Resolution was drawn. It declared that after being twice declared out of Order a Member should be suspended. He wished to know within what period was the declaration as to a Member being twice out of Order to take effect? A Member might have been declared out of Order last week—was that to be taken into account? If a Member were accidentally out of Order twice in a Session would he come under the Rule? Did it refer to each day's sitting of a Committee, or to the whole sitting of a Committee over a whole Session? There was a difference of opinion on these points. If it was confined to each single sitting, his objection would be to a great extent removed. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had described the various punishments it, was in the power of the House to inflict on refractory Members —suspension, imprisonment, and expulsion. What did that mean but a threat to deprive independent Members of their privileges if they were persistent in their attachment to particular or peculiar views? If that meant anything, it meant this—that Irish Representatives were to be deprived of the privileges to which they were entitled—namely, of advocating the measures they were sent to Parliament to support, and of opposing those which they believed to be opposed to the interests of their country. He felt bound as an Irish Member, not sent to the House of Commons to second the proposals of the right hon. Baronet, but to give effect so far as he could to the views of the Irish people on great constitutional questions, to say that neither censure, nor imprisonment, nor expulsion, would diminish the determination of the Irish people to have full justice done to them. It was useless to dangle these threats before their eyes. He was a Nationalist, but it was in self-defence. It ought to be remembered that the relations which subsisted between the Representatives from Ireland and the Representatives of Great Britain were 51 not chosen by the former. They were enforced—they did not exist because of mutual consent, and yet the Irish Members were asked to observe the terms of a bargain to which the great mass of the Irish people had been no parties. That fact would not, he freely admitted, justify any wilful obstruction of the Business of the House, but it would justify them in adopting a course of conduct which in their view was right, although to other hon. Members it might appear to be contumacious. It was not until after three Sessions had been occupied in the vain attempt to bring the House to a due consideration of questions relating to Ireland that it was necessary—not to intimidate the House, because they knew that they tried neither to intimidate, nor to cajole it— but to endeavour to assert the will of the Irish people; and it was well that they should know that this was the sort of treatment their Representatives were to receive if they displayed a constant and consistent fidelity to the principles they espoused. He could not sit down without calling attention to the two important features in the discussion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had seized on certain words that had been used by the hon. Member for Meath, and had denounced them as un-Parliamentary; but on consideration he had seen that they were not un-Parliamentary, and he had receded from that position. Again, he had charged the hon. Members for Meath and Cavan with deliberate obstruction; but the way in which the debate of that evening had been conducted showed that the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to prove that charge. The Irish Members were prepared to meet the charge, but it had not been insisted on. In conclusion he asserted that the independent Members for Ireland, while they were disgusted to find that the issue threatened by the Government had not been raised, were determined to adhere to the faithful, the fearless, and the independent discharge of their duties in that House.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, he fully concurred with the hon. Member for Mayo in his unutterable—his small appreciation—of the way in which general accusations were launched against Irish Members without any attempt to establish the charges made. He was also exceedingly disgusted, considering that 52 he was among the Members pointed at by the Resolutions, at the paltry and ineffectual character of the instrument that was to be directed against them. It was not, however, against the Government that he rose. His object was chiefly to protest against the proposed interference with the Forms of the House, which he considered were quite as necessary for the protection of majorities as of minorities. These Resolutions would not increase the dignity or the authority of the Speaker, because they would raise to a sort of equality a functionary who, up to the present time, had held a secondary position. Further, they were superfluous because, if a Member were guilty of contempt in Committee, it was in the power of the Chairman to bring it before the House by reporting the fact to the House, and it was then for the Speaker to bring the matter before the House. Consequently, it was difficult to understand why it should now be laid down that a man should offend twice before he should be dealt with. What moral weight, he asked, could attach to the decision of a majority of three-fourths any more than to a majority of one, if, as frequently happened, any considerable proportion of the Members voting had not been present during the discussion? It was true that an hon. Member might be silenced by such a vote for a week, or a month, or a year; but the very fact of that enforced silence would only serve to raise him in the estimation of the Irish people. If it were meant that these Resolutions should interfere with the determination of independent Irish Members to use their privileges in exposing grievances, in discussing Bills, and in denouncing injustice from whatever source it might proceed, and that the wings of the Representatives of the Irish people could be clipped, even by one feather-tip, by such process, he could assure the Government that they had never made a greater mistake in their lives. For his own part, he should not vote one way or the other. It was entirely a question of British Members, who derived so much advantage from the liberties and privileges of the House as compared with the Irish Members, who derived practically none at all. So far as the Party with which he was connected was concerned, the proposed alterations would have no effect. If in any of the debates in that House they had 53 failed in good taste, or had violated the Rules of the House, or had sinned against Order, they had the excuse that they had been most bitterly provoked. At the same time, references had been made by their opponents which were scarcely according to the Rules of the House. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), who had read the Irish Members so severe a lecture the other evening, would remember that he (Mr. O'Donnell) had moved that his words as personally insulting to him should be taken down. The hon. and learned Gentleman had contradicted him in the flattest way, and if it were not for the Rules of the House—

§ MR. SPEAKER
pointed out that the hon. Member was travelling beyond the subject-matter before the House.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
bowed to the ruling of the right hon. Gentleman, and concluded by repeating that he should take no part in the impending division.

§ DR. WARD
said, the Government, if he understood rightly, had brought forward these Resolutions to prevent obstruction of Public Business and to strengthen the authority of the Speaker and of the Chairman of Committees. But he (Dr. Ward) contended that there had been no obstruction, as anyone reading the Resolution would suppose, in the sense of not paying deference to the authority of the Speaker, and that the Government had evidently got into a state of confusion in dealing with a few Members who took advantage of the Rules of the House to give Notice of opposition to Bills, so that they might not be proceeded with after half-past 12 at night, and whose action the Resolution would not in the slightest degree meet. Looking at the way in which Irish measures, supported by a large majority of Irish Members, had been continually, year after year, thrown out by the votes of English and Scotch Members, there was, at least, a partial defence for the course taken by the hon. Members whose conduct was now the subject of complaint. At the same time, he did not altogether go with them, but it seemed to him there was a timidity —and indeed a want of reality —about the effort of the Government to meet the case, and that the effect of the proposed alteration of the rules would be to lower the dignity of the Chair.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, that as the House had taken a great deal of trouble on his account, he thought he ought to requite it by a few observations. He had been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and also by the Speaker, that his conduct throughout the Session entered very largely into the question before the House; and he had seen from the reports of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer after he, in obedience to the Speaker had withdrawn from the House, that he had stated that his (Mr. Parnell's) whole conduct was mixed up with the question he then put, and with the Motion he then made, quite as much, if not more, than the particular words that were taken down. Now he (Mr. Parnell) did not intend to oppose either of the two Rules which had been proposed. On the face of them he thought they were unconstitutional in the highest degree. He also believed they were intended to do more than was apparent at first sight, or to a casual observer. He believed it was intended to use them in such a manner as to muzzle him and prevent him from taking that part in the debates which he had hitherto taken. He could only say that no effort on his past should be wanting to prevent the Government, the Speaker, or the Chairman from being able to put the first of the Rules into force against him. But as his conduct during the Session was so very much mixed up with the question, perhaps he might be permitted to give the House a very slight sketch of what that conduct had been. He would remind the House that this charge of obstruction began to be made against him very early in the Session. It was, he thought, on the second or third day of the Session that a Motion was brought forward by an hon. Gentleman who sat behind the Treasury bench (Mr. Mowbray), and who was supposed to enjoy the confidence of the Government, to prevent all opposed measures from being taken after half-past 12. That Motion was opposed by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, because he and other Irish Members had found that in past Sessions the rule had been used to obstruct Irish measures in a most unexampled fashion. As an illustration of the way in which the measures brought forward by Irish Members had been obstructed by the operation of that rule he might mention that the only one which had 55 been passed this Parliament was one of comparatively little importance, which had been described as being a Bill to enable certain Irish Corporations to present their freedom to the hon. and learned Member for Limerick; and that during three previous Sessions, although neither the Government nor the majority of the House objected to the measure, it was possible for one or two Conservative Members from Ireland, who represented none but themselves and no feeling but their own bigotry, to prevent it from passing. For this and other reasons the half-past 12 rule was opposed by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick and himself when it was brought forward this Session. Immediately after the rule was agreed to against their protest and their votes, the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) and himself proceeded to use the rule against the Government in the same way that it had been used against Irish measures. They gave notice of opposition to many Government measures, with the result that very few of these measures had a second reading. They were at once charged with obstruction; but their intention was, not so much— nor indeed at all—to obstruct the Bills, as to show the Government the disadvantage and inconvenience of the rule in question, and in that way to secure that the rule should not be passed for future Sessions. Since that time he had seen reason to think that the rule was a good one, and if it should be again proposed, he would vote for it. He merely referred to this matter because it had been the first occasion of the charge of obstruction. Then came the discussions in Committee on the Prisons Bill, when he ventured to do a thing which he thought no Irish Member had ever ventured to do before—he ventured to put to a practical test the bona fides of the assertion constantly made in the House, that Irish Members were free to take that part in the debates on English measures which English Members frequently took, with disastrous effects, in the debates on Irish measures. Well, he intervened in those discussions in Committee, and he was at once attacked for so doing. He supposed every newspaper in England contained charges of obstruction against him on account of his action on the Prisons Bill. But what was the result of his action? 56 Why, it was that more of the clauses of the present Bill had been proposed and carried by him than by all the Conservative Members put together. Those clauses were admittedly useful and good ones; and he was told afterwards that if he confined himself to moving such Amendments, or to discussing measures in that way, instead of obstructing them, he would be filling a good and useful part in the House. Then came the discussions on the Mutiny Bill. He ventured to propose some Amendments in those time-honoured institutions, which he supposed had not been interfered with for a quarter of a century; and again he was told he was obstructing. He moved some Amendments in Committee, but owing to the paucity of attendance he did not get many Members to support them—not more than 40 or 50. There was also the disadvantage that they had been prepared hastily, and that he had not had time to get them on the Paper. He determined, therefore, to move them again on Report. This also was obstruction. What right had an Irish Member to move Amendments on Report which had already been rejected? Again, however, he was justified by the results, for he was supported by 140 or 150 Members, including the whole of the front Opposition bench, and including Gentlemen who had since been loud in charging him with obstruction. He had only asserted, as a matter of right, that an Irish Member might take an equal part in the deliberations of the House with any English Member. Every Member in that House who took part in the debates was of necessity, to a certain extent, an obstruction. Those who made long speeches on going into Committee of Supply and wasted time with Motions from which no practical good resulted in order, as it would appear, to satisfy their constituents rather than for any other purpose, were, he contended, the great obstructors, and they were not justified in obstructing, because they did not, as he did, gain any advantage to the country. But why was such an intervention in the discussions of the House an obstruction? Simply because that House was overwhelmed with work far beyond the capacity of any three Houses to go through. That was why the action of himself and all Members who spoke on any question must neces- 57 sarily be of an obstructive character. And as long as the House insisted on doing the work of England, Ireland, and Scotland—or rather on trying to do it; as long as it insisted, also, in legislating for the Colonies and for the Indian Empire, there would be obstruction of a practical character which would prevent them from doing work which they could not possibly do, however necessary. He thought he had now completely justified his action as to various Bills with regard to which he had been charged with obstruction this Session. But there remained the question of the South Africa Bill, which involved constitutional principles of enormous importance to the people of those Colonies. That Bill ought to have been introduced by the Government much earlier in the Session, if they had really felt the responsibility of their position. And because they had brought it in at a period when it was impossible to discuss it, when only a few days remained before the time at which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had announced that the House must rise—[The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER expressed dissent] or at which the right on Gentleman hoped it would rise. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No.] — well, the House would be very much disappointed if it did not rise at that time, coerceive proceedings had been adopted against those who, like himself, wished to see that Bill thoroughly debated, and that House had been almost carried into the commission of an act which it would lastingly have regretted and which would certainly have been a disgrace to a deliberative Assembly.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, that as one of those charged with obstruction, he was desirous of saying a few words. He was not at all annoyed at these Resolutions, because he thought that these discussions had shown the weakness of the Gentlemen who had undertaken to manage the affairs of this country. On Wednesday the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked that certain words of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) should be taken down; but he did not ask the opinion of the Chairman whether the words used were or were not out of Order. What the right hon. Gentleman did was on his own responsibility, and on the spur of the moment, and in a state of excitement—which was not very 58 common with him—he moved in a very bombastic manner that the words be taken down. Well, after they had been taken down, the right hon. Gentleman had ignominiously to get his Colleague the Secretary for War to extricate him from the difficulty in which he had placed himself. Then, on Thursday, the right hon. Gentleman had to be got out of his next dilemma by the Leader of the Opposition. That was not a dignified position for either the House, or its Leader to occupy. Again, they were now asked to change the Rules of the House, and to change them in a way which really was not called for by anything that had occurred; because it could not be asserted that the Gentlemen charged with obstruction had set the Speaker or the Chairman at defiance. On the contrary, they had always submitted to the ruling of the Chair. The Gentlemen now in the majority in the House would some day be in a minority—and though while in power they might not desire to legislate over much, the Party who succeeded them might wish to effect some legislation, and then the Party opposite, should these Resolutions pass, would regret that they had ever interfered with the freedom of Members to oppose what they disliked. As his hon. Friend the Member for Meath had been careful to point out, he and his Friends had on all occasions kept within the Rules of the House. In fact, they dared not do otherwise. The only instance in which the Rules of the House were pushed to their fullest extent was about a fortnight ago, when the power of moving that Progress be reported was used over and over again for the same purpose. The fact was, that the management of Public Business by the Government had been so frightfully bad this Session, that they now wished to throw the odium due to themselves on the shoulders of other people. He did not feel disposed to say that he had been guilty of misconduct. When any good Irish measure had been brought forward and supported by the Irish Members, it was always voted down by a large majority of Gentlemen who neither knew, nor cared much about the real interests of Ireland. He did not know that they had anything to apologize for, as they had done no harm —they had received no favour and they did not wish for any—and if the pro- 59 posed Resolutions curtailed the power of hon. Gentlemen, they would impair the prestige of the House without injuring the Irish Members. As far as he knew, no factious Amendment had ever been moved by any of his Party. But, if it was obstruction to raise fair issues and discuss them dispassionately, perhaps they were guilty. If they really wished to obstruct, it could be done easily within the proposed new Rules, because they could move endless Amendments, and make it impossible that any Business could be done. He supposed they would soon lay down the Rule that Irish. Members were not to interfere in English affairs. That might or might not be sound doctrine; but as long as he was a Member of the House he should insist on being heard on all questions, whether English, Irish, or Scotch, whenever he pleased, and as often as he could do so within the Rules of the House and the limits of reasonable discussion. Beyond that he never should attempt to go, and he never had gone. Of course, he had occasionally inadvertently committed breaches of Order; but he had done so unintentionally, and. he had always apologized at once, and had withdrawn his observations the moment he had been called to Order by the Chair. If hon. Members were to be put under a new system of martial law they would be worse off than their neighbours.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
Sir, the hon. Member who has just sat down, following the example of several hon. Members who have preceded him, has treated the Resolution now before the House as one aimed at a system of wilful and persistent obstruction. I do not think that that is a correct view to take of this Resolution. The Resolution, as I shall endeavour to show in a few minutes, is not aimed at a system of obstruction in this House—if any such system has hitherto prevailed—but is aimed at altogether different objects. But as reference has been made to what has been called a "policy of obstruction," and as some hon. Members have thought it necessary to make some observations on the subject, perhaps the House will allow me also to say a few words in reference to it. The House will doubtless agree with me that whether the explanation of the hon. Member for Meath is altogether satisfactory or not, we listened with considerable pleasure to 60 the tone and spirit of the remarks he made. The House will have heard with satisfaction the hon. Member disown any intention on his part to vexatiously obstruct its Business, and that the course he has taken, and which has had the effect of obstructing that Business, was adopted with the object of discharging his duty in Parliament in reference to a certain measure then before it. I cannot, however, allow the observations of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) to pass without some protest. The hon. Member for Mayo, assuming that the Resolution was directed against a policy of obstruction, has proceeded to justify that obstruction. I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. Member, nor even to push to the utmost the meaning of his language. I do not assert that he has admitted that he has already adopted a "policy of obstruction," nor do I know that he has announced his intention to adopt that policy on a future occasion; but I do say that I understood his observations to go to this extent— that if he thought fit to adopt such a policy he should be justified in doing so. The hon. Member considers that he and some other hon. Members have neither part nor lot with the great body of this House; and he asserts that he is unable, acting in the way hon. Members usually do, to carry into effect the intentions and the wishes of his constituents; and he has asserted that he should, therefore, be justified in offering obstruction to any measure which might be brought into this House. I do not think that this is the occasion for entering into an argument with the hon. Member as to the treatment which, as he says, Ireland has received at the hands of Parliament during the present Session; and I merely wish to call attention to the effect of the language which the hon. Member has used in this House to-night.

§ MR. PARNELL
rose to Order. He did not know whether he was entitled to interrupt the noble Lord; but he wished to point out exactly what the effect of the language used by the hon. Member for Mayo was.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, that if any explanation were interposed, it should come from the hon. Member for Mayo.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
I have been exceedingly careful in what I have said not in any way to misrepresent what the hon. Member for Mayo 61 said. I stated distinctly that I had not understood the hon. Member to admit that he either had in the past, or intended in the future to obstruct Business, but that I did understand him to say that he should be justified in adopting a policy of obstruction against all or any measures. I repeat that I do not think that this is a fitting opportunity for entering into any discussion as to the treatment which the Irish people have received at the hands of the British Parliament; but it is necessary that some notice should be taken of the declaration of the hon. Member for Mayo—because in the event of such a policy being adopted by himself, or by any other hon. Members, it will be important for us to recollect the terms in which the hon. Member has just spoken. As I have said, I do not think that the Resolution is aimed at a policy of obstruction, but against other effects which have arisen out of certain circumstances during the present Session. As far as my recollection carries me, it has usually been sufficient for the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees to point out to a Member that he is out of Order—that he is travelling wide of the subject under discussion—that his remarks are not relevant to that subject —to insure that the hon. Member appealed to should, with more or less good grace, bow to the decision of the Speaker or the Chairman, and that he should desist from that line of argument. But hon. Members will bear me out that such has not always been the case during the present Session. Doubtless hon. Members have said that they have always "bowed to the decision" of the Speaker or of the Chairman of Committees; but, as I myself have seen, they have, after being called to Order, proceeded to continue the same line of argument; and upon a recent occasion I have heard the ruling of the Chairman of Committees described by an hon. Member who was called to Order as "interruptions from the Chair." Now, that appears to me to be an evil which, if not greater than any that could result from a policy of obstruction, is, at any rate, of so grave and pressing a character as to require that some immediate action on the part of the House should be taken. There is no doubt whatever—as has been stated to night—that the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees has a certain remedy in his own hands. It is compe- 62 tent to him to consult the House and to take its opinion upon the conduct of the Member so offending. That, however, is a course which is attended with a good deal of inconvenience and with much loss of time; and, therefore, it is only reasonable, in view of the frequent instances of this description which have occurred lately, that the House should provide some simple and speedy mode of procedure by which hon. Members offending against the authority of the Speaker or of the Chairman of Committees should be immediately called to Order and dealt with. As has been already pointed out, this Resolution places not only a new authority in the hands of the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees, but imposes upon him a new responsibility. Under this Resolution it will only be necessary for the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees to state his opinion to the House that an hon. Member is disregarding his authority, to ensure either the obedience of the Member, or notice being taken of his offence by the House. I am sure that, looking at the high respect which we all have for both the Speaker and the hon. Gentleman who fills the office of Chairman of Committees, we have the fullest confidence that such action will not be taken without due consideration and a due sense of the high responsibility it will involve. I have already said that this Resolution is not aimed against any policy of systematic obstruction. It is perfectly true that the Forms of the House do admit of such a system of obstruction being adopted without infringing its Rules, and without rendering the hon. Member who adopts it liable to the censure of the House; and that would be the case under this or any other Resolution. I do not think it necessary, on this occasion, to discuss at any length the question, how far, or in what manner, the House might be called upon to deal with such a system of obstruction; but there can be no doubt whatever that if on any future occasion such a policy should be resorted to a remedy will be found, not in any rule such as that about to be enacted to-night, but in what may be described as the Common Law of Parliament. On a very recent occasion you, Sir, stated very distinctly to the House that a person wilfully obstructing business without reasonable cause is guilty of a con- 63 tempt of the House, and is liable to such punishment as the House may think fit to inflict. Now, I do not think that it is desirable that the House should be bound by the literal interpretation of these words. They formed a statement of the law of the House, which was given upon the spur of the moment, and I do not think that you, Sir, would desire it should be embodied in any Rule which would not strengthen, but rather weaken, the force of the decision which you then gave. But there can be no doubt that such a power as you have indicated is an inherent one in every Assembly such as this to which we have the honour to belong; and it is not desirable that we should fetter any action which we might take in this respect by formulating that power in precise terms. Such a power, however, is necessary to any Assembly which desires to conduct its business orderly and efficiently; and, no doubt, if this House should either in this or during any other Session find itself precluded from the due performance of its duties by a system of wilful obstruction, it will be prepared to exercise that power. The manner in which that power should be exercised would be a matter of considerable difficulty, and would be one for mature and deliberate consideration. If it even should become necessary to punish such an offence, no doubt it would be desirable that the full nature of the offence should be recorded. I think that great service has been rendered to the House upon one or two occasions arising out of the course that has been taken by certain Members; by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt). He has, from time to time, given us a particularly just and a perfectly fair and accurate and unimpassioned statement of the proceedings which has come under his own observation—the accuracy of his statements cannot be controverted. If the Leader of this House, or if any other Member, consider that a system of obstruction is being adopted at any time, the House, of course, may take the necessary steps for putting an end to it. It is evident that the Member of the House who thinks it necessary to call attention to a case of wilful obstruction ought to be able to produce a series of proofs by which he may justify himself in making that Motion. I am sure that the House would 64 not be desirous or anxious that the power should be exercised; but, on the other hand, it would not complain if it were used on a fitting occasion.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER
, in explanation, said, he was sure the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) would not desire to misrepresent him; but he understood the noble Marquess to state that he (Mr. O'Connor Power) had said that he would feel justified in opposing all or any measures to mark his disapproval of the course taken by the Government with regard to Ireland. Now, he had never uttered those words. He had, however, said that while the conduct of the Government justified resistance to bad measures, and while the Treasury Bench was occupied by Gentlemen who advocated measures adverse to the interests of Ireland, he would continue to do his best to hurl them from power. He said that, and nothing more.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
said, he had been pleased to hear the tolerant language in which the Resolutions had been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House; but he begged to remind the House that the question concerned the English as well as the Irish Members. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted from the Report of the Select Committee on Public Business in 1840, but he had omitted to tell the House that that Committee had also said that the Government was necessarily responsible for the state of Public Business. In the present case much of the responsibility rested with the Government—especially as they had frequently attempted to push on Business after half-past 12. There had been several Committees on the Rules of the House — notably in 1837, 1848, 1854, and 1861; but none of them had recommended the changes now advocated, and the House now proposed to adopt a policy that had never before been supported. In any case, no Rules could prevent independent Members from occupying time. Was there an instance in which a Member who had been guilty of a breach of Privilege had not been dealt with in a satisfactory way under the existing Rules? English Members ought to pause before they adopted these Resolutions; for they would have more action upon themselves than upon the Irish Members. These Resolutions would interfere with the ancient privileges of 65 the House and with the rights of minorities, which had been protected for centuries by its Rules; and in accepting them, they would be doing that which repeated Committees of the House had declared ought not to be done.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
Sir, I think before the House comes to a division on this question I ought to say a few words on the discussion which has taken place. And in the first place—if I may be permitted to say so—I congratulate the House upon the temper and dignity with which what might have been an agitating discussion has been conducted. I think that, whatever may have been said of late out-of-doors with regard to the proceedings of this House, it will be generally admitted that upon the present occasion we have conducted ourselves as it became us to do—that there has been an amount of honourable jealousy, which I share as much as anyone, for the privileges of this House and for the rights of independent Members. And I repeat what I have said more than once in the course of the evening—that no one can feel more strongly for those rights than I do. With regard to some observations that have been made there have been, I may say, very few indeed with which I feel disposed to quarrel. There have been certain things said with which I do not agree; but in an Assembly like this we must expect there will be differences of opinion; and when those differences of opinion are fairly and honourably expressed we can but listen to them with respect. But I should like to say this generally with regard to certain observations made by the hon. Member for Mayo, the hon. Member for Meath, and others—that nothing could be farther from the thoughts either of myself personally or of the Government on whose behalf I have brought forward this Motion, or, I may venture to say, on behalf of Members of this House, than any desire to throw discredit upon our Colleagues from Ireland. We feel that it is of the greatest advantage to our deliberations that Gentlemen who come from Ireland—possessing, as many of them do, great acuteness and great power of speech — I think very few Members of this House would deny that a large proportion of the eloquence of this House is to be found in the ranks of the Gentlemen from Ireland — we 66 should be the last to deny that great advantage is to be derived from the contributions of these hon. Gentlemen to our debates. Although discussions of particular measures have occasionally gone beyond limits which we think reasonable, we should be the last to dispute the advantage of having their assistance. But after making that free admission—which I do with the greatest sincerity—I do wish to ask hon. Members—and I would ask the hon. Member for Meath himself—whether they can say conscientiously that all the opposition which they have conducted in the course of this Session has been of the character which he describes? Now, undoubtedly, when he speaks of his action in regard to certain provisions in the Prisons Bill or in the Mutiny Bill, and points to cases in which he obtained alterations in the clauses of those Bills, or to other cases in which, although he was not successful, he at all events obtained the consent and assistance of large minorities, we readily acknowledge that is a kind of assistance which, though we may disagree with his particular views, is valuable and is thoroughly reasonable on the part of hon. Members. But I would ask whether in such cases as we have recently seen—can hon. Members really think they are facilitating the Business of the House, or in any way helping its deliberations, when, there being no question of importance at issue, they make repeated Motions for reporting Progress, or for the Adjournment of the House? Take, for instance, that celebrated night which we spent in this House, or walking through the division Lobbies—sitting long after the gas had been put out and daylight had shone into our room—do they think the obstruction was such as could be justified? On the occasion when these Motions were made, the Vote was not objected to upon its merits; it was only challenged because of some fancied slight which was supposed to have been committed in the case of a previous Vote. I would ask hon. Gentlemen, in all seriousness, whether they will be very proud of going to their constituents in Ireland and saying that they had punished what they thought was an unreasonable slight by compelling all the Members of Parliament to spend the night in the way that night was spent? I am sure hon. Gentlemen on reflection 67 cannot justify conduct such as that— and they must remember there have been more than one occasion, during the present Session, in which there has been obstruction of that kind. I admit there was nothing in the language of the hon. Member for Meath un-Parliamentary or objectionable; but I still hold that the course he was pursuing, and others with him, was of a character that deserves to be noticed. I hope the result of all that has passed is this—that if hereafter— which I trust may not be necessary—we have occasion to complain of hon. Gentlemen for obstructing unnecessarily and without sufficient cause the Business of the House, we shall find the House is prepared to deal firmly, though temperately, with such a case; and that by not merely putting into force the Resolution which I have proposed, but by the exercise of that undoubted authority which vests in the House itself with reference to the proper conduct of Business. There is one point which was raised by the hon. Member for Mayo on which I think there ought to be no doubt. The hon. Member, in the course of his observations asked what was the precise meaning of the first Resolution which we are discussing? He asked, in the first place, whether it was understood by the expression "when a Member, after being twice declared out of Order," &c, that if a Member in the course of a Session were declared out of Order, he might at any time be brought before the judgment of the House in this way. I apprehend that is not the meaning of this Resolution. I apprehend the Resolution is confined to the proceedings of each sitting and the day on which the question is raised. And so also with regard to the last part of the Resolution:—"that the Member be not heard during the remainder of the Debate, or during the sitting of the Committee." I apprehend that does not mean that a Member who has fallen within the judgment of the House once in the course of a Committee which may spread over a week should be precluded from having a voice in the discussion on a subsequent day, but simply should not take part in the discussion on that particular day. I apprehend that would be reasonable; but if there is any doubt on the subject, it would be well that it should be cleared up. But I think the most satisfactory 68 way of proceeding would be not to make any change in the Resolutions until we understand what may be your ruling on the matter. I understand that ruling would be what I have stated; but it would be satisfactory to the House that we should have it from the Chair. The Rule would, of course, be sessional—that is to say, it would bind us for the Session only. It is understood by hon. Members that when the Resolutions will be enforced there shall be a Vote of the House taken with the Speaker in the Chair. If a breach of Order occurs in Committee, the Chairman will report it to the House, and the time when the Motion should be made would be when the Speaker was in the Chair. Under these circumstances, we may safely leave the question to the judgment of the House. One word with reference to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Sandford), which is the question first to be decided. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) gave two reasons which should make us pause before accepting such an Amendment as that of my hon. Friend. I would lay special stress upon the importance of avoiding the introduction of a distinction between an absolute majority and a majority of two-thirds or three-fourths. I cannot help thinking that there would be great danger in introducing such a distinction, because it might be the beginning of a system to which I should very much object—giving to a majority of two-thirds or three-fourths power to do that which we should not like to do with an absolute majority. I feel that it would be better not to press the Amendment; and, in the event of its being withdrawn, I have great hopes that the House will affirm the Resolution. I fully believe, if there is a real disposition on the part of the House to forward debate, that by passing this Resolution—not with a view to suppress legitimate opposition, or prevent full criticism of the measures that may be before us, but to prevent Motions, and repeated Motions, of a merely dilatory character — we shall greatly facilitate the Business of the House, without interfering in any way with freedom of discussion.

§ MR. SPEAKER
In reference to the question of the construction of the Resolution raised by the right hon. Gentle- 69 man, I have to state that I consider the expression "during the Sitting of the Committee" to mean the Sitting of the Committee for that day; and I apprehend that to be the proper construction. But if there should be any doubt in the matter, the ruling should undoubtedly be in favour of the Member against whom the disqualification would operate.

§ MAJOR O'GORMAN
said, whether it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, or a schoolmaster, who drew up the Resolution, he thought it a pity that he had not made it plainer. The Resolution said, "When a Member"— he wanted to know what was meant by "a Member." A Member of what? Was it a Member of the Carlton Club, or the Reform Club, or of the Commons House of Parliament? His first Amendment—for he had three or four of them, every one of which he intended to move —would deal with that point. "When a Member, after being twice declared out of Order" — what was meant by being declared "twice out of Order?" Was it "twice" during the whole of his Parliamentary career? twice during the whole Parliament, the month, the Session, or the day? What was the reason the right hon. Gentleman did not take more pains with his sentences when he put them before the House? His first Amendment was that —["Order!"]

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, he must point out to the hon. and gallant Member that there was at present an Amendment before the House, and no other Amendment could be considered until that was disposed of.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
asked if he was to understand that by the Rules of the House the Amendment of the hon. Member for Maldon, if put to a division, precluded any alteration of the original Motion, but that if it were withdrawn another Amendment might be proposed.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, the hon. and learned Member was correct. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Maldon were by leave withdrawn, then the original Resolution might be amended; but, unless it were withdrawn, no Amendment could be moved, except by way of addition to the Resolution.

§ MR. SANDFORD
said, that after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer he would withdraw his Amendment. ["No, no!"]

§ MAJOR O'GORMAN
begged to ask the Chair, with the utmost respect, whether he would be in Order in now moving an Amendment? ["Order!"] The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) himself declared that though he had brought forward his Motion to-day without Notice of any description except that it was upon the Paper this morning, had said, in his usual insulting manner—[" Order! order!"]

§ MR. SPEAKER
The words of the hon. and gallant Member are quite un-parliamentary, and he is bound to withdraw them. [Cries of "Withdraw! withdraw!"]

§ MAJOR O'GORMAN
I am surprised that hon. Members should for one moment imagine that I stand up here for any other purpose than for the purpose of withdrawing any un-Parliamentary expression. But I ask again, am I precluded from moving my Amendment? ["Withdraw! withdraw!"] I do withdraw the expression, and I beg pardon.

§ MR. SPEAKER
As I have already stated, an Amendment is before the House, and no other Amendment can be moved until this is disposed of. The Question is that leave be given to the hon. Member for Maldon to withdraw the Amendment. ["No, no!"] The right hon. Gentleman accordingly put the Question, "That those words be there added."

§ Amendment negatived.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
asked if he rightly understood Mr. Speaker that the only Amendment that could now be moved was by way of addition to the Resolution?

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is quite correct. The only Amendment that can now be moved must be by way of addition.

§ MAJOR O'GORMAN
said, he would therefore move, as an Amendment, to add the following Proviso:—" Provided always that the times during which he shall have been called to Order shall be considered during his whole Parliamentary career."

§ MR. SPEAKER
Will the hon. and gallant Member be so good as to bring up his Amendment?

§ MAJOR O'GORMAN
, whose Amendment had not been reduced to writing, thereupon proceeded to place it upon paper, in the usual form; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman appeared to be unable to formulate the Proviso to his satisfaction, and at length, amid some laughter, abandoned the attempt.

MR. SULLIVAN
Mr. Speaker, the incident which has just taken place is not calculated to lend much weight to our deliberations or conduce to the dignity of debate. I for one have no wish to see any of my countrymen and fellow-Members take up any position on the floor of this House which is not in consonance with good order and decorum. But if anything apparently inconsistent with this has occurred, on the Government I lay the blame. This episode, which pains us all, but for different reasons, only shows the necessity for affording further time to consider what Amendments may be moved. My hon. and gallant Friend has had no time, no more than I have had, or you have had, to examine closely and carefully the terms, and weigh the import, of these Resolutions. They met our eyes to-day, and we are called upon to vote them decisively to-night. Well, as to this precipitancy, I have already made all the protest I mean to offer. I shall say no more. I am not concerned to constitute myself a special guardian or defender of the prerogatives of this House. It behoves you rather than me to look to such a matter. This House has existed for 500 years, and it behoves you to act under the conviction that it will exist for 500 years to come; and so to beware how you set a precedent that in five years or 50 may be fatal to public liberty. No such concern have I in the future of this House; because it is my hope that in a few years I shall be legislating elsewhere for my own country, in her native Parliament. It is, therefore, for the House of Commons to take care of itself to-night; what you are doing now will cause you regret hereafter. We are to have the French system of the avertissement imported among us. ["No, no!"—"Yes, yes!"] I say deliberately yes — the French system of the avertissement. Hon. Members of this House are to go 72 about under the indignity of their " first warning," and their " second warning," after which comes suppression; for, be it known to the world, the British. House of Commons is taking to copy the institutions of the Empire under Napoleon the Third. If the hon. Member for Meath, or the hon. Member for Cavan, entertained the purpose they disavow, of showing to Ireland what they could do to drag down and injure this House as an institution hostile to their country, to-night they have their revenge. They have caused you to do with your own hand what they never could have accomplished with theirs. They have led you to limit liberties and destroy dignities which came down to you venerable in their antiquity. For my own part, henceforth I shall consider myself shorn of much of whatever little dignity attached to one so humble as a Member of Parliament, when I think that a Member may have to go about this House and be pointed at as one who has had his "first warning," and is under notice to quit. This is my last word against what you are now about to do. Let me not be misunderstood. I hope I may say that it is well known to those who hear me that I am not speaking for myself; that I have always anxiously bowed to the Ruling of the Chair and the authority of the House. In that respect I have nothing to change; my course in the future will be the same. Whenever I cannot act in consonance with the Rules and usages of this House, I shall feel it is time for me to resign my seat. I shall never claim a right to sit in this Assembly and claim immunity from its Rules; but I do feel that when these Resolutions shall be passed, I shall hold my seat, not freely and independently as of yore, but in a great degree on the sufferance of your majority.

§ MR. C. B. DENISON
suggested that if the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford had any serious Amendment to propose no doubt the Clerk at the Table would be good enough to write it for him.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, he had hoped to pass through the discussion of the evening in silence. He was one of those who had no room for resentment or displeasure in regard to the recent occurrences, because every feeling he could possibly entertain of that description 73 was entirely absorbed in a sentiment of pain:—he had come to the conclusion that, on the whole, his duty would be best performed by supporting the proposal of the Government, and that the test support he should tender would be support given in silence. He rose at the present moment in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan). The declaration of the hon. and learned Member could not be passed by in absolute silence. Anyone reading a report of it would necessarily come to the conclusion that it was a very solemn utterance very deliberately made by a gentleman whose powers had enabled him and entitled him to command on many occasions the marked attention of the House; that it denoted a crisis in the relations between the two countries; and that the words he used were words which only could have been used with any degree of appropriateness on the occasion of the passing of a conclusive vote of the House which went greatly to abridge liberty of speech in this Chamber, and which was well understood to be aimed at the Representatives of Ireland. Upon such a supposition as that the words of the hon. and learned Member would be natural, and would be becoming. Being conscious himself of no heat or excitement, or feeling that would bias him adversely to the hon. and learned Member, he would ask whether there was not an almost ludicrous contrast between the weight and force of the expressions he had used and the proposition that was before the House? There was no question of a ruling from the Chair—which necessarily must be, as no man was infallible, a matter more or less of personal opinion; there was no question about the Forms and Rules of the House—everything that night had been conducted according to rules with which they were all familiar. The penal operation of the Resolution was confined within very narrow limits—a doubt had even been suggested as to whether it was worth while to propose it—but, whether narrow or broad, its penal operation was to lapse within a fortnight or three weeks, which was the extreme term anyone would assign to the Session; and if ever it were revived as a proposal of the Government, it would be subject to full consideration and discussion de novo upon its merits as a proposition which was 74 originally introduced under peculiar circumstances, and must necessarily undergo revision. He did not wish to arouse the feeling of the House against the hon. and learned Member for Louth— he wished rather to express the conviction he entertained, that, with the judgment and good sense he had so often shown in the House, he himself would re-consider the words he had used, and would see that there was nothing of a violent and sweeping character in the Resolution. He would, then, hope that the hon. and learned Member would be the first to disavow them, if not by express declaration, at least by his conduct in that House. He was sure he spoke the general sense of the House when he said of the hon. and learned Member and of those with whom he acted, that the great object of the House generally was, by fair and equitable conduct, to retain where they possessed, and to win if they did not possess, the affections and attachment of their countrymen, and to make the names of the two Isles which existed on the Statute Book a union, not of laws only, but of hearts.

§ MR. GRAY
rose to move to add, at the end of the Resolution, the following Proviso:— Provided always, That no Member shall vote on such Motion who was not present when the matter complained of occurred. The Resolution spoke for itself. His object was to prevent some 200 or 300 Gentlemen who had seen and heard nothing of what occurred in Committee or in the House, when a Member had been censured, from rushing from the dining-room and other rooms to vote at the suggestion or on the direction of the "Whips" when a division was called. A desire had been expressed 'by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the Leader of the Opposition that no personal matter should be introduced into the discussion; but almost every speaker had introduced personal references. It was impossible now to dis-associate this Resolution from certain incidents and to treat it as an impersonal matter, as it might have been treated had it been proposed some weeks ago. He could speak with some knowledge of the effect of these Resolutions on Ireland; and he would venture to say that in Ireland they would certainly be treated as an attack upon two or three individuals— 75 and it certainly looked like it if, as had been stated, and not as yet been denied, the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down on Wednesday having in his pocket the draft of the Resolution with a blank for the name. At all events, it was of such a nature that it certainly did not appear on the records of the House in the form in which it was moved and read from the Chair. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would contradict the statement he had referred to, if it were unfounded. The so-called "policy of obstruction" was being widely discussed in Ireland, and much difference of opinion existed with regard to it. He had not himself taken part in it, and had a strong opinion as to the policy of the course pursued by hon. Gentlemen whom he was proud to call his Friends. He believed that the majority of the popular party in Ireland were at first of opinion that the policy of obstruction was not desirable; but when it was felt that the Resolutions of the Government were levelled at two or three individuals, popular sympathy would be excited, and those who were disposed to condemn obstruction would now support it. They were, therefore, only advancing a step on the downward path;—more stringent Rules would have to be adopted for next Session, for the Party of two or three would then be increased to 20 or 30, and after a Dissolution would number, he believed, as many as 80. If the Leader of the House had not on Wednesday somewhat lost his head, but had postponed taking any action till next Session, there might have been no occasion for any action at all, for the Irish people would, during the Recess, have so settled the question that no alteration of the Rules of the House would have been necessary. The policy of the Government had been adopted in haste, and he believed would end disastrously. He proposed this Amendment in order that hon. Gentlemen who had been down in the smoking-room or the library during the discussion should not rush into the House when the division bell rang, and vote upon an occasion of this nature under the direction of the Government Whips.

§ MR. DILLWYN
, in seconding the Amendment, said, it was so obviously just that the matter complained of should not be judged of by those who 76 had not heard the proceedings that he hoped the Government would consent to adopt it.

§ Amendment proposed, To add, at the end of the Question, the words "Provided always, That no Member shall vote on such Motion who was not present when the matter complained of occurred."—(Mr. Bray.)

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
trusted that the Government would pause before they adopted a principle which would make a complete revolution in the procedure. Once adopt the principle, although upon a special question and for plausible reasons, that there could be two Houses—one, so to say, an inner House and the other an outside House with limited privileges—the matter could not stop there, but a very dangerous precedent would have been created. He thought the danger anticipated would not arise. The House was, unfortunately, so fond of personal questions that there was little chance of their being discussed in thin Houses, and a procedure so essentially novel ought not to be adopted during the mere fragment of a Session that now remained.

DR. CAMERON
believed that the Resolution before the House adopted no new principle. About a fortnight ago the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) having been called to Order three times, and having again gone into irrelevant matter, the Speaker said that if the hon. Member persisted in disregarding the ruling of the Chair, he should call upon some other hon. Member to address the House. He therefore wished to ask whether the House did not affirm by this Resolution a principle which already existed? He thought they could get on very well without the Resolution, and also that the Resolution would do no harm.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
I wish to say one or two words —not so much as to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tipperary as upon a personal remark which he made as to my conduct. With regard to the Amendment, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) that it establishes a new principle, which cannot be confined to this particular case. It would be a question whether, if it were required in this instance that no hon. Gentleman should vote who had not 77 heard the whole of a particular proceeding, the same rule should not be adopted as to all votes before the House. Now, with reference to the personal matter raised by the hon. Member for Tipperary, that he understood I came down on Wednesday with a Resolution prepared in my pocket ready to move it against any hon. Gentleman who might require it—

§ MR. GRAY
said, he did not say he had understood that this was so, but that it had been so stated in the House and not denied.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
A statement to that effect was made, I think, by the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) or some other hon. Gentleman, and I contradicted it at the moment; but as it has been repeated, it may be as well that I should say that it was not at all the case that I came down here on Wednesday with any such Resolution in my pocket, or that I contemplated anything of the kind. I was prepared certainly to watch what might be the course of the discussion in Committee, and after the proceedings had gone on for some time I thought it necessary to interpose. I did so on the spur of the moment, and moved that certain words should be taken down which illustrated the character of the proceedings in Committee. Well, Sir, I had only two or three minutes before me, while the Speaker was coming in, and then in a summary way I gave notice that I proposed to move certain Resolutions, and that I should also move that Mr. Parnell be suspended from the service of the House. While I was doing that the Clerks at the Table were good enough to prepare for me the proper form of such a Motion, and that was the Resolution I proposed. Having never given formal Notice as to this Resolution, it could not appear on the Journals, and that is the reason why it does not appear. But the truth is that the whole matter was done very quickly—I believe that what I did was, on the whole, rightly done, and that, on the whole, it was well to raise the question at the time—not for any purpose of attacking vindictively any person or party, but to call the attention of the House to proceedings to which I thought it necessary its attention should be directed.

§ MR. BIGGAR
supported the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for 78 Tipperary, and hoped it would be pressed to a division.

MR. SULLIVAN
, referring to the remarks of the hon. Member for Cambridge University, asked whether the House desired to lay down the principle that a man should be condemned without debate in that House?

§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY
believed his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) had struck the main point of the whole question. An hon. Member's defence ought to be heard. The Resolution of the Government would inflict the severest penalty short of actual expulsion, and he protested against a proposal so un-English, un-British, and un-Irish.

§ MAJOR O'GORMAN
said, they had been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day that he hoped no acrimonious feeling would be imported into this debate. He should like very much to have this question answered— How was royal Meath, which had returned his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) as its Representative, to receive the intelligence of the mode in which the right hon. Gentleman had treated him. He had a right to suppose that he sought to put him out of the House in a state of disgrace, which had recoiled upon himself, and which would assuredly recoil upon himself with the people of Ireland. But his object in rising on that occasion was not to vindicate his hon. Friend—that he was able to do for himself, and the people of Ireland were able to do it for him. But he asked the English people —he did not ask the Members of that House—it was vain to do it—but he asked the English people to take care of their liberties, or a new Cromwell would walk into that House and desire "that bauble " to be taken away.

§ Question put, "That those words be there added."

§ The House divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 312: Majority 272.—(Div. List, No. 256.)

§ Amendment proposed, To add, at the end of the Question, the words "Provided always, That if the Committee he the Committee of Supply or Ways and Means, such Member shall not be debarred from speaking on any Item subsequent to that with reference to which such Motion shall have been made."—(Mr. O'Shaughnessy.)

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
thought it would be objection- 79 able to introduce this qualification to the Resolution. It would lead, in fact, to the frittering away of the Resolution which was about to be submitted to the House:—and he could not help thinking that the hon. Gentleman and those who suggested Amendments of this kind overrated the probability of annoyance under the Resolution as it stood. The Resolution being intended to support the authority of the Speaker and the Chairman, ought not, he thought, to be hampered by the proposed Amendment.

§ MR. WHALLEY
contended that the rights of minorities ought not to be fettered because of the action of a few Roman Catholics who came into the House for the purpose of breaking up our institutions. The hon. Gentleman proceeded to make further observations in the same strain—

§ MR. SPEAKER
called the hon. Member to Order, and said: I must point out to the hon. Member in the strongest terms that he is trifling with the House. I am bound to add that it appears to me his own conduct affords a very strong argument in favour of the Resolution.

§ After a few words from Mr. SULLIVAN and Mr. P. A. TAYLOR, who supported the Amendment,

§ Question put, "That those words be there added."

§ The House divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 307: Majority 260.—(Div. List, No. 257.)

§ Amendment proposed, To add, at the end of the Question, the words "but nevertheless it shall be competent for a Member to move the Adjournment of the Debate, without any further Debate thereon."— (Mr. Callan.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, that the effect of the Amendment was that a debate on a Motion which could not be debated might be adjourned. That was a proposition which never could be carried in a Parliament of the United Kingdom.

§ MR. BIGGAR
supported the Amendment, remarking that a precedent for it had been set on Wednesday by the Government itself, when the debate on the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to suspend the hon. Member for Meath from his functions until Fri- 80 day was adjourned till the day on which the suspension was to expire, and the hon. Member for Meath attended in his place in the meantime.

§ Question put.

§ The House divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 317: Majority 299.—(Div. List, No.258.)

§ Amendment proposed, To add, at the end of the Question, the words "Provided always, That the ruling of the Speaker or Chairman, as the case may be, shall be taken down in writing and entered on the Records of the House, and such Record shall set forth the grounds of such ruling, and shall cite the precedents, if any, on which such ruling was made."— (Mr. Fay.)

§ Question proposed, " That those words be there added."

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that the greater part of the Amendment was surplusage, because of course a record of the transaction would appear in the Journals of the House.

§ SIR HENRY JAMES
agreed that the Amendment was wholly unnecessary.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Main Question put.

§ The House divided:—Ayes 282; Noes 32: Majority 250.—(Div. List, No. 259.)

§ Resolved, That, when a Member, after being twice declared out of Order, shall be pronounced by Mr. Speaker, or by the Chairman of Committees, as the case may be, to be disregarding the authority of the Chair, the Debate shall be at once suspended; and, on a Motion being made, in the House," that the Member be not heard during the remainder of the Debate, or during the sitting of the Committee, such Motion, after the Member complained of has been heard in explanation, shall be put without further Debate.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUER
then moved the second Resolution, which, he said, simply extended to Committees the practice which prevailed when the House was sitting as the Whole House.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That, in Committee of the whole House, no Member have power to move more than once, during the Debate on the same Question, either that the Chairman do report Progress or that the Chairman do leave the Chair, nor to speak more than once to such Motion; and that no Member who has made one of those Motions have power to make the other on the same Question."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

§ MR. ANDERSON
contended that under the Rule as it now stood the power of obstruction would still remain.

§ CAPTAIN NOLAN
moved, after "House," in the first line, to insert "between the hours of noon and 1 A.M.," which would show that those who obstructed Business after 1 A.M. had not acted unreasonably.

§ Amendment proposed, In line 1, after the word "House," to insert the words " between the hours of noon and one of the clock, a.m."—(Captain Nolan.)

§ Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Mr. Sullivan.)

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, this Resolution was really part of the whole subject which they had been discussing. They would be sacrificing a great deal of time if they were now to adjourn the debate. It would be more convenient to the House to proceed with the Business.

§ MR. WHALLEY
again addressed the House, and was again called to Order by Mr. Speaker, amid much laughter, this being the second time the hon. Member had been declared out of Order during the same Sitting.

§ MR. COGAN
appealed to the Government to be content with their moral victory, and not to prolong the contest.

§ MR. DILLWYN
supported the appeal.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, the appeal would have some force if the Government were forcing the Resolutions on the House, instead of the House taking steps to protect itself.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
said, he did not attach much importance to the Resolution, but it was obviously reasonable, and ought not to involve any further loss of time.

Mr. FAWCETT and Mr. O'CONNOR POWER
urged the withdrawal of the Motion for Adjournment.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
hoped the Government would not persist in taking the South Africa Bill to-morrow. If they did, he could assure them they would make very little progress.

§ MR. COURTNEY
believed the Government would promote the despatch 82 of Public Business by not having a Morning Sitting to-morrow. Certainly it was most unusual to take so important a Bill at a Saturday Sitting.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, the Government had no wish to press the South Africa Bill to-morrow against the opinion of the House if it were understood that practically there would be no opposition to this Resolution. The first Bill taken to-morrow would be the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Bill.

§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

§ In reply to Dr. CAMERON,

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
stated that the only other Business to-morrow would be the East India Loan Bill.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Amendment proposed, in line 4, to leave out the word "such," in order to insert the words "each separate," — (Mr. Anderson,)—instead thereof.

§ Question, "That the word 'such' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

§ Words inserted.

§ Main Question, as amended, put.

§ The House divided:—Ayes 250; Noes 7: Majority 243.—(Div. List, No. 260.)

§ Resolved, That, in Committee of the whole House, no Member have power to move more than once, during the Debate on the same Question, either that the Chairman do report Progress or that the Chairman do leave the Chair, nor to speak more than once to each separate Motion; and that no Member who has made one of those Motions have power to make the other on the same Question.

§ House adjourned at Two o'clock.