Commons Sitting of 28 February 1880

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (ORDER IN DEBATE)—RESOLUTION.

    ADJOURNED DEBATE. [THIRD DAY.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [26th February].
    And which Amendment was,
    In line 1, after the word "Member," to insert the words "at least one hundred Members being present."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Debate resumed.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 68: Majority 60.—(Div. List, No. 25.)
    MR. CALLANsaid, he rose with some reluctance to move the omission, in lines 2 and 3, of the words "or by the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House." He should have preferred to see it moved by someone sitting on the front Oppo-
    1670
    sition Bench; but as upon the present occasion the Opposition seemed from some hidden motive to have abstained from undertaking the rôle of an Opposition, or from criticizing in any spirit of independence the Resolutions placed before them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had felt it incumbent upon him to submit the Amendment. When he first saw the Resolution he formed the opinion, which had since been somewhat strengthened by the debate, that it was an ill-considered and an ill-arranged Resolution. He now found that it had evidently been maturely considered; that it was intended as a trap for the Irish Members, and that it was to form an unworthy excuse for a discreditable appeal to the country upon a false issue. Now, he would not for a moment raise his voice against the proposal for vesting the Speaker with the power laid down in the Resolution, except to say that, in his opinion, the authority should be Sessionally conferred, for an expiring Parliament should not presume to fetter or to dictate to the new Parliament about to be elected. However much he might have differed from the present Speaker and his Predecessors, he was only too ready to acknowledge that the reign of the present occupier of the Chair had been marked by strict impartiality, and that not the faintest suspicion ever attached to his decision. But he would be lacking in a spirit of manliness, if he did not object to vesting such powers as those in question in the Chairman of Committees. He must say that during the 12 years he had had the honour of a seat in that House he had never seen the Chairman of Committees, whether sitting on the Ministerial or the Opposition Bench, exhibit the same amount of impartiality as the right hon. Gentleman whom he now addressed. In fact, he would say that the decisions of an ex-Chairman of Committees who now sat on the front Opposition Bench (Mr. Dodson), while as dogmatical and despotic as those of the present Chairman, were given in a still more arbitrary and offensive manner.
    MR. O'DONNELLrose to Order. He wished to know if it was in Order to discuss the conduct of the present occupant of this high Office? For his own part, he (Mr. O'Donnell) wished entirely to dissociate himself from any personal attack made upon the Chairman of Ways

    1671
    and Means by the hon. Member for Dundalk.
    MR. CALLANsaid, the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) would have an opportunity later on of dissociating himself from the remarks which he (Mr. Callan) felt it his duty to make. Perhaps the reason why the hon. Member wished to dissociate himself from these remarks was that he (Mr. Callan) had never associated himself with the hon. Member's system of obstruction.
    MR. BIGGARbegged to ask Mr. Speaker whether his hon. Friend the Member for Dundalk was justified in attributing obstruction to an hon. Member, especially when the object of the Resolution now before the House was to hold up obstruction as a matter for reprobation?
    MR. SPEAKER: I am not aware that any offence against Order has been committed by the hon. Member for Dundalk; but I must say that interruptions of this character are in themselves disorderly.
    MR. CALLANproceeded to remark that the Speaker having been elected in his Office by the paramount authority of the House, and having been raised to the position of First Commoner of England, was placed beyond all considerations of Party; but the present Chairman of Committees was, and always was, a Party man, and invariably a strong partizan. Therefore, he thought it would be derogatory to the House and degrading to the independence of Members, if the power proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Resolution was put into his hands. He thought if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been in an amiable mood, and had desired to conciliate rather than aggravate the Members of that side of the House, he would have moved three Resolutions instead of two. He would have moved that the Speaker should have the more stringent powers asked for by the Resolution. He would then have asked for more stringent powers for the Chairman of Committees than he at present possessed; and, lastly, he would have sought to surround such powers by certain safeguards for the preservation of the Privileges of the Members of the House. If he might be allowed to examine the conduct of the present Chairman of Committees, he would venture to assert he was an Obstructionist of the very first
    1672
    water. He remembered to have heard on one occasion that when only five Members were present, and the present Chairman of Committees presided, he had made use of tactics which they on that side of the House deemed to be most unworthy. At one of the late Sittings, an hon. and gallant Gentleman made use of observations which should at once have been checked by the Chairman of Committees. He (Mr. Callan) rose to Order; but as he was not permitted to speak until a few minutes had elapsed, he was told then that he was precluded from making the Motion which it was undoubtedly his right to make—namely, that the words used by the speaker should be taken down, such words being unquestionably an offence to the House. On another occasion the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) and the hon. Baronet the Member for Hastings (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth)—two nice-looking young men for a small tea-party—actually undertook to prepare an indictment against the hon. Members for Meath (Mr. Parnell) and Cavan (Mr. Biggar), with the object of having them suspended from the service of the House. He himself (Mr. Callan) heard this conspiracy concocted, and he warned the hon. Members for Meath and Cavan of what was taking place. He was bound to say that an explanation was made to him by the Clerk of the House which was very creditable as far as his conduct was concerned, which showed that that Gentleman was no party to the conspiracy. The Chairman of Committees did not deny the charge; he wished to give him an opportunity of doing so now, and would ask him whether he was a party to that conspiracy? ["No, no!"]
    MR. COURTNEY: I rise to Order.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Dundalk has given Notice of an Amendment with reference to the Chairman of Committees of the Whole House being intrusted under the Resolution with certain powers. In speaking to that Question, the hon. Member for Dundalk has gone back to certain transactions which ought to have been taken notice of at the time, if they were to be taken notice of at all. It certainly does seem to me that the hon. Member is travelling beyond what is regular in going back to the circumstances which

    1673
    occurred at the time to which he is referring.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he would at once bow to the decision of the Speaker; but he must state in self-defence that he did allude to the circumstance at the time, and no contradiction was offered. He had merely mentioned it now for the purpose of ascertaining if there was any truth in the rumour, generally circulated and believed at the time, that the present Chairman of Committees was a party to such a transaction. If so, he wished to use it as an argument why the House should not intrust the hon. Gentleman with power to silence a Member. He would go now to another case, and refer to what happened in the debate upon the Transvaal business. He remembered that as the night progressed he sat as a silent Member, disapproving very much of what was happening on that occasion; but, feeling that there would be an attempt to establish a precedent out of the occurrence, he continued to watch the current of events from aloft as a calm spectator. The right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) was one of those who occupied the Chair on that occasion; and he must say that the right hon. Gentleman acted evidently with the intention of putting down this lot of Irish Members. ["Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: The character and conduct of the Chairman of Ways and Means require no defence from me; but I have to point out to the hon. Member for Dundalk that it is scarcely fair, after a long lapse of time, no Notice being given, that he should now found charges against that hon. Member which are based mainly upon hearsay evidence and at second hand.
    MR. CALLANsaid, they were based, with all due respect for the Chair, neither upon hearsay nor at second hand, but upon his own hearing by personal observation. He might add that the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) also occupied the Chair on the occasion to which he referred, and, displaying the utmost impartiality, conducted the Business in a manner to reflect credit upon himself. He alluded to these matters, not for the purpose of making charges, but to warn the House against intrusting such powers to an occasional Chairman of Committees, who might, and
    1674
    probably would, be a strong partizan. The Resolutions of the Government were ill-arranged, or rather he should say, they were well arranged for the purpose of forcing a Dissolution on the country with a false issue. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition had abdicated his functions in giving support to the Government. And why had the Government brought forward these Resolutions? Because it would be a good war-cry to go to the country with. They all knew the importance which the noble Lord at the head of the Government attached to a good cry. They had all read his views on that subject in Coningsby and his other novels. His (Mr. Callan's) Amendment was directed, not against intrusting the Speaker with the powers which the Resolution proposed to confer upon him, but against committing what he conceived would be a blow against the dignity and independence of the House if they were to consent to intrust similar powers to a mere partizan. For these reasons he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed, in lines 2 and 3, to leave out the words "or by the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House."—(Mr. Callan.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I wish at once to express both my dissent from the proposal of the hon. Member, but still more emphatically my entire dissent, in which, I believe, I shall be supported by the great bulk of the House, from the tenour of the observations which the hon. Gentleman has permitted himself to make. Those observations did not appear to you, Sir, to be absolutely outside the Rules of Order; but, at the same time, I must say they were of a character which tried very much the patience of Members of this House. I think it is utterly impossible that the Business of this House can be conducted in a proper manner if we are not prepared to respect those who are placed in position and authority, and to support those who are placed in positions of great difficulty, delicacy, and responsibility. I venture to say, in opposition to the sentiments of the hon.

    1675
    Member for Dundalk, that the very large majority—the great bulk of this House—I might almost venture to say, without fear of contradiction, the whole House, with the exception of the hon. Member, would repudiate the sort of charges he has endeavoured to cast against the Chairman of Committees. I venture to say that my hon. Friend, in the discharge of the duties which have devolved upon him during the last six Sessions, has laboured most assiduously to do his duty, not only with delicacy, but also with strict impartiality. He has been subjected to great trials, and I can only express my own sense of sympathy with him in the difficult position in which he has frequently been placed. I think the observations you made a short time ago were observations which would commend themselves entirely to the sense of justice of everyone in the House. If it was thought right and necessary to impugn the conduct of the Chairman of Ways and Means, the proper occasion would have been the moment the matter complained of occurred, when the decision of the House upon the validity of the complaint should have been taken at once. If it was not thought right or necessary to make those complaints at the time they occurred, then the matter ought to be laid aside. Nothing can be more injurious—I will not say unfair—to the hon. Member who holds the position of Chairman of Ways and Means, nothing can be more injurious to the interests of the House itself, than that questions of this sort should be liable to be raised from time to time, and suggestions thrown out, and imputations and insinuations made, which are of a character so detrimental to one who takes a prominent part in the service of the House. I did not rise to question the use of the word "conspiracy;" but I was very much tempted to do so. I doubt whether such a word ought to have been used; but I thought it was better we should allow the hon. Member to have his full swing, and say all that he had to say, rather than attempt to stifle any observations he wished to make. The House has heard those observations, and I venture to think that they receive very little support at the hands of the House. With regard to the Motion which has been made, I can only say that if we are to
    1676
    strike out the reference to the Chairman of Committees and confine ourselves to the action of the Speaker when the House is sitting as a Whole House, we shall fail to meet one of the very great difficulties we have to encounter. It is much more frequently the case when the House is in Committee that these difficulties arise. In evidence taken in 1878 you, Sir, yourself, in giving evidence on the subject, after noticing what you had observed when you were in the Chair, went on to say that such cases occurred more frequently when the House was in Committee. It is impossible that you could take any proceedings while the House is in that position, because you are not present; and if we are to have any order at all it must be by committing the power to the Chairman of Ways and Means. I expressed the opinion last night, and I retain the same opinion now—that it is right the Chairman of Ways and Means should be supported in what he does by the vote of the House. I think it would be altogether destructive of the proposals we are making if we were to consent to the suggestion that these words be struck out.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, the hon. Member for Dundalk had done him the honour to attack him for something which he did two years ago. It was an honour, and as such he accepted it. It was true that he did take the Chair between 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning, and he occupied it for about four hours, and during most of the time the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) was taking a very vigorous, but not an irregular, objection to the Bill. But when three or four Members constantly got up and moved to leave out the word "the" or some noun or adjective, he confessed that he did pretty strongly express his opinion that any hon. Member who moved an Amendment was bound to move sense. That was the only course he took on that occasion, except putting the Amendments as they were moved. He thought that any repetition of conduct of that kind, which the whole House, except three or four Members, reprobated at the moment, should not be allowed to occur again. He must repeat that if ever there was a case of wilful obstruction by moving Amendments that were mere nonsense in the result it was that, and if it were ever

    1677
    his duty to take the Chair in Committee again, he would take the same course as he had then.
    MR. SHAWexpressed his regret that any personal element had been introduced into the debate, for they were now discussing one of the most important questions that could be brought before the House. The proposals of the Government required all their calmness and attention, and he did not think they would effect any good object by importing anything into the debate of a personal character. So far as he was individually concerned, he had nothing to complain of in the conduct of the Chairman of Ways and Means. The duties that Gentleman had to perform were sometimes of a very onerous and laborious description, and he certainly performed them in a very satisfactory manner. He wondered that he had not done something much more out of Order, something much more extraordinary than he had ever seen him do. He believed the Chairman of Ways and Means deserved sympathy rather than censure. As to his being a partizan, that was another question altogether; it was really the question they had to debate in this Amendment. Just as the House was rising the previous night he took the liberty of calling attention to this point. He hoped that no further personality would be indulged in, but that they would proceed to what ought to be their main object—namely, to induce the Government to consent to such alterations as would really improve and simplify the Office of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and relieve the Chairman himself of a most unpleasant duty he might be called upon to perform. The Chairman of Ways and Means must really be the actor under the Resolution. The Speaker would have little to do in carrying it out; the Chairman of Ways and Means, on the discussion of Amendments that would constantly be moved in Committee, would be the Gentleman upon whom the real burden of the Resolution would fall. On every occasion that hon. Gentleman must be in the Chair to decide; the Speaker and the House would only be called in as executioners to see that his ruling was carried out. Under the circumstances, if the Chairman of Ways and Means was a Party man, and was compelled from the position he occupied to call a Member of the Com-
    1678
    mittee constantly to Order, he would be exposed to attacks which would lessen the dignity of the House, would weaken the authority of the Chair, and destroy the respect and confidence which the people had in the House of Commons. He suggested, as a compromise, that when the Chairman named a Member the House should be re-formed, and the Member accused should have an opportunity of defending himself, and if his explanation was not satisfactory the decision would not be carped at. It could not then be said that they were acting as partizans, and they would be acting with full knowledge and information of the facts of the case.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I understand that in my absence, and without the courtesy of any Notice to me, the hon. Member for Dundalk has made an attack on me.
    MR. CALLAN: I made no attack on the noble Lord. I referred to two Members who were preparing an indictment against the hon. Members for Meath and Cavan, in order to give them an opportunity of contradicting the statement.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: My hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) has given me what I have no doubt is a perfectly accurate account of what occurred. The hon. Member used the word "conspiracy." Now, conspiracy is an agreement to do something which is illegal and criminal. The hon. Member used that word, and also stated that he had made these charges on a former occasion. I have no recollection of his having done anything of the kind, or I would have taken a public opportunity of denying it. I wish to say that if the hon. Member has any charge to make against me, and will make it at a proper time, and will give me due Notice of his charge, I shall be prepared to state to the House anything that may have taken place. Last year, when there was gross and persistent obstruction, I did consult the Clerk at the Table as to whether something might not be done. I wish to take this opportunity of saying that when the hon. Member coupled my name with that of the Chairman of Committees, and used the word "conspiracy," to the best of my recollection I had no communication with that hon. Gentleman on the subject. In making

    1679
    that statement, the hon. Member for Dundalk indulged in. his usual substantial inaccuracy.
    MR. NEWDEGATEhoped the House would adhere to its ancient practice, which was that when anything occurred in Committee that was inconsistent with Order the Chairman should exercise an original authority, and that the House should resume, and the matter be referred to the Whole House. He was of opinion that they ought to render a tribute to the manner in which the Chairman discharged his duties. He hoped the Amendment would be rejected.
    MR. HOPWOODsupported the Resolution, because its acceptance had been recommended by those to whom he owed allegiance, and because the Government believed it was necessary to pass something of the kind. At the same time, he did not himself think that a point had been reached which made the passing of such a Motion a matter of necessity. Whenever the Government had showed any determination to pass a Bill they had received sufficient support from the Opposition to enable them to overcome all obstruction placed in their way. The hon. and learned Member was proceeding to refer to occurrences in connection with the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill, when——
    MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the hon. and learned Gentleman was now discussing the general question, and not confining himself, as he was bound to do, to the Amendment actually before the House.
    MR. HOPWOOD, resuming, said, he was not in favour of investing the Chairman of Committees with the power which it was proposed to vest in him by the Resolution, for a Chairman of Committees must always be appointed by a majority in the House, and, being identified with the dominant Party, must naturally feel great irritation at conduct which he considered to be undue opposition.
    MR. SYNANcharged the Government with being responsible for protracting the discussion, because they would not say whether they intended to accept the proposal that had been made for the purpose of protecting an accused Member from the sentence of the Chairman of Committees. He (Mr. Synan) did not see how they could now strike
    1680
    out the Chairman of Committees; but he did think they ought to give the Member an opportunity of being heard before he was condemned.
    MR. O'DONNELLhoped that personal matters would not be gone into again, although he wished to inform the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) that he was wrong in supposing that in the reference that was made to him anything derogatory to his fairness whilst in the Chair, during the absence of the Chairman, was intended. With regard to the moving of an Amendment which did not make "sense," that was only done once, and it was only practised then for the purpose of putting the question of the power of the hon. Member to make such an Amendment to the test, and of eliciting an opinion from the Chair on the matter. With regard to the Amendment before the House, he felt some embarrassment as to how he should vote. If the Government intended to give the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means the power of suspending a Member from speaking and voting for a whole evening, he should vote in favour of the omission from the Resolution of the words "Chairman of Ways and Means." It seemed to him that throughout the Resolution there was a wholesale confusion between the disciplinary and penal and the summary and superior jurisdiction of the House. He thought that the Chairman of Committees should have full power to silence a Member who had been guilty of an offence in a Committee of the Whole House for the whole of that Committee; and where a similar offence was committed in the House, the Speaker should likewise have the power of silencing the Member for the whole Sitting. But when a Member should have been guilty two or three times during the same Session, a cumulative offence would have been committed transcending the summary jurisdiction of the Chairman.
    MR. A. GATHORNE HARDYasked if the hon. Member was in Order, as he was really discussing an Amendment which had not yet been reached?
    MR. SPEAKERruled that the observations of the hon. Member for Dungarvan were relevant to the subject matter of the Amendment before the House, although, no doubt, they also had reference to another Amendment.
    MR. O'DONNELLproceeded to say that, where a cumulative offence had been committed, something more should be invoked than the summary jurisdiction of the Chairman or Speaker. The House, in such a case, should be applied to as a tribunal of supreme jurisdiction, and should mete out a punishment proportionate to the offence. In this manner the offence of obstruction would be decisively put down, and the power of the Commons would be maintained. He would only add that there was not the dimmest idea of obstruction on the Home Rule Benches. They were fighting a straightforward battle; but if they found it hopeless to amend the Resolution they would desist, and leave upon the Government the responsibility of passing a bad Order.
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEYthought that, as the understanding was to accept the proposals of the Government with all their faults, no more time should be wasted over the matter, and that the House should accept the Resolution in the form in which it was presented to it. It seemed to him that a great deal of strength of argument had been expended uselessly against the proposal of the Government, for there was no inherent absurdity in the proposal to call in the House after the Speaker should have named an hon. Member. The Speaker or Chairman of Committees would act as a jury; and if he pronounced a verdict of guilty the House would be called in to pronounce sentence, and it would take into consideration the antecedents of a Member. The practice of calling in the House to pronounce judgment might be a very great protection to an hon. Member. He could imagine, for instance, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) annoying a Chairman very much by one of his inflammatory speeches, which acted on some Gentlemen below the Gangway as a red rag did to a bull; and he could imagine the Chairman, wishing to get on with Business, pronouncing the hon. Member out of Order. Now, he should be sorry to pronounce that hon. Member, who was often an Obstructionist malgré lui,to have been guilty of an offence for which the penalty proposed by the Resolution should be inflicted on him; and it would, he thought, be a protection to individual Members to have the
    1682
    House called upon to decide upon their conduct.
    MR. COURTNEYpointed out that the proper occasion for discussing whether a different form of procedure should be adopted when the House was in Committee would arise later on in the Resolution, and urged that the discussion of the question at issue would be much facilitated if the Government would state the views with respect to it which they held. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) had suggested that when a case of irregularity presented itself in Committee the proceedings of the Committee should at once be suspended, that the Chairman should report the offence to the Speaker, who should then call upon the Member incriminated to explain his conduct, and that the Member having been heard in his own defence the House should then come to a vote in the matter. He could understand the House being then called upon to take action, and being in a position to pronounce an impartial decision; but, as he had already suggested, the proper time to consider the point was when certain words of the Resolution which stood lower down came to be discussed.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSexpressed a doubt as to whether the termination of the discussion in which the House was engaged would be facilitated by any statement which might be made by him or any other Member of the Government; but as a direct appeal had been made to them by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, he had no hesitation in saying that the Government had very carefully considered the various suggestions which had been made for the amendment of the Resolutions, and that they adhered to the proposals which they had originally submitted to the House. It was obvious that if the course indicated by the hon. Gentleman were taken, the Chairman of Committees would, immediately after naming the inculpated Member, have, without remark, to report the circumstance to the Speaker, and then the Member would have an opportunity of giving his view of the matter, and the House be called upon to give judgment upon the ex parte statement of the Member whose conduct was complained of, so that it would not be in the nature of that fair and impartial judgment which the advocates of that

    1683
    mode of proceeding seemed to suppose. The Government, therefore, as he had said, preferred to stand by their original proposal, which was, in a great measure, the same as that which had been recommended by the Committee upstairs.
    MR. DODSONthought that the announcement just made by the noble Lord ought to have the effect of greatly abridging the discussion, inasmuch as the Government had a majority at their back, which, as the House was well aware, would enable them to carry any proposal to which they might announce it to be their intention to adhere. He might, however, observe that he dissented from the noble Lord in the opinion that the Resolution of the Government was the same as that which had been recommended by the Committee, for it differed from it in three respects; and, in regard to two of these, he preferred the recommendation of the Committee. He was, at the same time, of opinion that it would be a waste of time to prolong the discussion on the Amendment, and that the responsibility of passing the Resolution as it stood should be allowed to rest on the shoulders of the Government.
    MR. O'CLERYsaid, he was strongly opposed to giving the Chairman of Committees the power which it was proposed to confer upon him; and he hoped that in the interests of fair play his hon. Friend the Member for Dundalk would press his Amendment to a division. It was evident that the Liberals who had taken part in the discussion were animated in the course they were pursuing by the consideration of the approaching General Election. His belief was that, notwithstanding all they had said during the Recess, they were abstaining from active opposition to the Resolution in order to prevent the Government from immediately dissolving Parliament.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must really call the attention of the hon. Member to the Question before the House, which is that of the power to be vested in the Chairman of Committees.
    MR. O'CLERYsaid, he hoped that the Representatives of Ireland would show that they had an earnest desire that the Rules of the House should be based on principles of fair play and impartiality. He should oppose the Resolution to the utmost.
    THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer remarked last night that the Business of the House could not be carried on unless those in authority were treated with proper respect. That, he believed, every hon. Member was ready to admit; but then it was incumbent upon those authorities so to demean themselves as to command that respect. He therefore protested against the notion that the conduct of those who held office should not be criticized. He might remind the House that on one memorable instance in Parliamentary history the Speaker had to be held in his seat and forced to do his duty. As for the Government, it was impossible for them to extricate themselves from the ridiculous position in which they had placed themselves. It might be disagreeable for them or their supporters to hear this; but there was no resisting the logic of facts. They had no defence for the grounds they took up, and this morning he saw that the Conservative papers had absolutely nothing to say on behalf of them. Although the noble Lord the Postmaster General said they had considered the subject, he did not condescend to tell them the arguments or reasons upon which they arrived at their conclusions, which, he (the O'Donoghue) submitted, must be rather peculiar, as it was beyond the power of any Member on the Opposition side of the House to form the remotest idea of what their arguments could be. He complained that the Chairman of Committees or the Speaker were to have the power to give a decision, and they were to be assisted by the House, without having heard a single word in the matter. Members would find themselves no better able to give proper decisions than would a body of cabmen called from the coffee snuggery in Palace Yard. It was clear that the Resolutions were aimed at those who represented the people of Ireland in that House. The position of Chairman of Committees was a singular one, as he was a Party man; and he, therefore, thought there was good reason for the adoption of the Amendment. He could only add that he was surprised at the bulk of the Opposition allowing the Government, without protest, to force their Resolution through the House.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, if a proposal of this kind was to be adopted at all it must be applied to

    1685
    Committees as well as Sittings of the House; and as the initiative under the Resolution as to proceedings in Committee must be vested in someone, he was of opinion it would be most properly left in the hands of the Chairman. The only alternative he could see to the proposal of the Government was that notice should be taken of an offence by some Member of the Committee other than the Chairman; but the matter would come before the House again when another part of the Resolution was submitted. There was really therefore, he thought, no good reason for prolonging the discussion of the Amendment before the House; and he agreed with the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) that the main proposal would be more advantageously dealt with later on. Under these circumstances, he thought it would be wise of the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) to withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he would follow the course pointed out. He did not wish to go to a needless division when they could decide the matter on another part of the Resolution. He would be willing to withdraw his Amendment. ["No, no!"]
    MR. FINIGANcontended that it would be dangerous to give so arbitrary a power as that proposed to the Chairman of Committees, who was almost always a strong partizan. He hoped the House would consider the conciliatory suggestions offered by the hon. Member for Cork and the hon. Member for Liskeard. He was sorry the Government had thrown down the gauntlet, and intimated that the House was to be governed by a majority, and not by reason or argument. If hon. Members from Ireland were to be overridden by a tyrannical and unreflecting majority, they would feel it their duty to continue the war to the bitter end. It should be remembered that a Government might rule, not, as at present, by a large majority, but by a narrow one of three or four votes; and if the Resolution were passed in its present form, it would be a melancholy thing to arm a Chairman with power to silence a Member who might be making a proposal inconvenient if not fatal to such a Ministry.
    MR. BIGGARmaintained that the Chairman of Committees, if a partizan, as he would in all probability be, would
    1686
    be wholly unfitted for the duties proposed to be imposed on him. The evil would be still greater in the case of a Deputy Chairman, who was, it seemed to him, an entirely irresponsible person. Take, for example, the case of the South Africa Bill. What happened in connection with that measure?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the only Question before the House was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundalk, an Amendment which that hon. Gentleman had expressed his willingness to withdraw.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he was not aware that the hon. Member for Dundalk had asked for leave to withdraw his Amendment. ["Oh, oh!"] He did not think that hon. Gentleman could have seriously intended to say so; for he had requested him, a short time ago, on leaving the House, to challenge a division on the subject.
    MR. CHAPLINrose to Order. He asked whether it was in Order for one Member of the House to impute to another Member that he did not intend to say that which he actually stated. He understood the hon. Member for Cavan to imply that when the hon. Member for Dundalk said he was willing to withdraw his Amendment, the latter Gentleman was not serious in making that statement.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, it would appear that the hon. Member for Dundalk stated one thing to the House, and, according to the hon. Member for Cavan, another thing to that hon. Gentleman. It was for the hon. Members to reconcile these statements to the House.
    MR. BIGGARrepeated, that the hon. Member for Dundalk, on leaving the House, had requested him, in distinct terms, to challenge a division. Reverting to his former strain of observation, he desired to state that his own experience of Deputy Chairman had been exceedingly unfavourable. He had seen a Gentleman in that position so incompetent and confused that he scarcely knew how to put the Question. Then, again, other hon. Members were decided partizans. Take, for example, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers); he was an unblushing partizan.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONrose to Order. He asked whether the hon. Member was in Order in referring to the right

    1687
    hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract as an unblushing partizan, when the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman had nothing whatever to do with the Question before the House?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he had already indicated to the hon. Member for Cavan that he ought to keep his observations strictly to the Amendment before the House, which was that of the hon. Member for Dundalk.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he simply wanted to impress upon the House the inexpediency of placing the liberty of Members in the hands of partizans who might be unable to control their Party feelings.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that, in his opinion, the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had no right to question the veracity, or attempt to lecture other hon. Gentlemen, as he had tried to do.
    MR. SPEAKERagain pointed out that the Question before the House was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundalk.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he did not understand that the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire possessed any particular privileges in making his observations. ["Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member referred to rose to a point of Order; that had been decided, and any discussion now should bear strictly upon the Amendment.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he submitted, of course, to the ruling of the Chair. He objected to the power proposed to be conferred on the Chairman of Committees and the casual Deputy Chairmen; for, even though they were angels, they could not separate themselves from Party politics. At the same time, he wished to disavow any sympathy with obstruction. With the exception of the late Mr. Butt, he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) believed he was the only Irish Member who had expressed his condemnation of obstruction; and what he had said in past times on that subject, even if it should involve the loss of his seat to-morrow, he would not withdraw. With regard to the Amendment, he thought it raised a very important question; and if it went to a division he would, not from any motives of obstruction, but on general grounds, vote in favour of it.
    MR. CALLANdesired to explain the misunderstanding which had apparently arisen with respect to his Amendment, He had asked to withdraw it, but the House refused to give him permission to do so; and in these circumstances, and not wishing that it should be negatived without a division, he had requested the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) to challenge a division upon it.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 191; Noes 17: Majority 174.—(Div. List, No. 26.)
    MR. FINIGANsaid, that in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) he begged to move the omission, in line 4 of the Resolution, of the words "or otherwise," which, he contended, were useless and senseless. He failed to see either their object or meaning. They opened up a wide field of debate, and might have consequences which were not foreseen to both sides of the House. He trusted the Government would give up the objectionable words without any debate or division.
    Amendment proposed, in line 4, to leave out the words "or otherwise."—(Mr. Finigan.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'or otherwise' stand part of the Question."
    MR. WHITBREADexplained the necessity for retaining these words, and pointed out that the words in question, which were embodied in the Resolution by the Committee on Public Business at his instance, enabled the House to inflict a much milder punishment for an abuse of its Rules than might be inflicted under its existing powers, and to do so without waste of time in debate. The majority of the House had been for some time of opinion that there had been wilful and persistent obstruction with an ulterior object. This Resolution was designed to put a stop to that; but the Rules of the House might still be abused. It was not for him to suggest in what way obstruction might crop up in a new form. He thanked the hon. Member for Cork for his speech, and he hoped it would be well considered by the constituencies in Ireland.
    MR. SYNANdid not think the House had been satisfied as to the construction

    1689
    to be placed upon the words "or otherwise." If the Resolution was intended as a declaration that all cases of abuse of Order or violation of the Rules of the House should come under the penalty, and that it was a definition of the power of the Speaker, then he could understand the retention of the words; but if, on the other hand, the Resolution was intended as a particular machinery applicable to a certain kind of obstruction, then the words were not only unnecessary but mischievous. The words left the House in doubt as to whether the Resolution was to be a universal and general declaration of the law of the House, or whether they were to constitute an addition to its ordinary law. If it was intended that there should be a particular mode of punishing a particular offence, what was meant by the phrase "or otherwise?"
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that it was not without reason that these two words had been objected to by many hon. Members, and by the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), whose experience in that House was greater and longer than that of any other Member. It was impossible to consider those words without reference to the penalty which would be attached according to the latter part of the Resolution. He had seen an hon. Member (Mr. Feargus O'Connor) approach the Chair in a threatening manner, and afterwards strike another Member in the face, the unfortunate man being afterwards found to be a lunatic. On other occasions he had seen Members committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms. Such grave and aggravated offences occurred but seldom, but he was sorry to say they had occurred; and he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the effect of this Resolution would not be to bring this grave class of offences under the operation of the latter words, by which a Member could only be suspended for that Sitting? Offences of obstruction must be considered as cumulative. One act only of unduly straining the Forms of the House would not constitute the offence of obstruction.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought there would be no doubt, after the explanation given by the hon. Member for Bedford, that the meaning of the words was that any Member wilfully and per-
    1690
    sistently obstructing, or by any other method obstructing. The punctuation, however, was a little confusing. As the clause stood, the insertion of the comma made it appear that the words "or otherwise" were intended in a different category from abuse of the Rules of the House. It was quite plain that the phrase should stand—"by abusing the Rules of the House by obstruction or otherwise."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERbelieved there was no more difficult question to decide than where to put your commas. He always went back to the advice of an old master of composition—"Write without stops, but read with them." With regard to the words "or otherwise," he did not see how any sense could be made of the words except in the way in which the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) interpreted them. They were meant to apply to any case of abuse of the Rules of the House; and if a Member abused those Rules, either by specific and persistent obstruction, or in any other manner, then the proceedings indicated in the following lines of the Resolution were to take place. He was quite willing to expunge the offending comma, if that would be accepted as a concession. He did not consider that the Resolution in any way whatever superseded or surrendered the ancient powers of the House, or debarred it from proceeding in accordance with former precedents. It was intended as an additional and a supplementary form of proceeding in certain cases in which the old form of proceeding would be inapplicable or would lead to considerable inconvenience. It was considered inconvenient, when a Member had persistently opposed Business by irregular conduct, that it should be necessary to have the same sort of formal proceeding as would be followed had the Member been guilty of those graver offences such as those to which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) referred. Here it was intended to substitute a punishment, if it could be so called, light in itself, but immediate in its application, the object being not so much to punish as to deter, and to deter not by the severity but the rapidity of the penalty. He thought the House would do well to adhere to the words "or otherwise."
    MR. BIGGARpointed out that they could not now strike out the comma after "House," as they had dealt with an Amendment which came after it in the clause; but whether the comma remained in or not would make no difference. With the comma the Resolution was absurd, and it might stand in that form as a warning and example to future Leaders of the Government not to tamper with the Rules of the House.
    MR. O'DONNELLhad come to the conclusion that it would be much better not to move any more Amendments, but simply to take a division on the main Resolution, against which he was prepared to vote. On the part of the Irish Members, he might say they were thoroughly thankful for the nature of the proposition on which obstruction was to come before the country. He expressed a hope that his Friends would move no more Amendments, but reserve themselves for the main vote. Then he hoped they had done with the matter in the House, though he promised the Government they had not heard the last of it in the country.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL moved the insertion of the words—
    "The Member so named shall be permitted to offer such explanation, defence, or apology as he may see fit for a time not exceeding ten minutes."
    He believed it was in accordance with the opinion of the House, and with common justice, that a man before being condemned should be heard in self-defence. The exact time to be allowed was immaterial; but he held that the opportunity of an explanation would in many cases render extreme measures unnecessary. It was quite possible that the difficulty might be got over by the Member apologizing or submitting himself to the House. Such a Rule might, too, prove of use, when it was a case of mistaken identity on the part of the Speaker.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONseconded the Amendment. It would give effect to the whole of the Resolution, for the vote of the House would carry but little weight if given in the absence of any explanation from the Member condemned. Though the House might be satisfied, yet the country might not be, and a Member might go down to his consti-
    1692
    tuency and find those who sympathized with him, and to whom he could assert that he could have explained had the opportunity been allowed him. Without that explanation he might claim to be the victim of great injustice; and as a matter of justice between both the Member and the House, and between a Member and his constituents, the offender should be heard before the House proceeded to find a verdict and pass a sentence.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 4, after the word "then," to insert the words "the Member so named shall be permitted to offer such explanation, defence, or apology as he may see fit for a time not exceeding ten minutes, after which."—(Sir George Campbell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought the Amendment was founded on a misapprehension. It had been supposed, for instance, that the Speaker might be mistaken in naming a Member on his committing an offence. But the Speaker or Chairman would, in the first instance, call a Member to Order, and probably nothing more would take place. No penalty would follow unless the offender persisted, and he would have every opportunity of making explanation or apology. He did not think it would be reasonable to allow the last word to the offending Member without allowing the Chairman to reply to statements, perhaps misrepresentations. The adoption of the words would only lead to additional wrangling and disputation.
    MR. SYNANcould not understand the process of reasoning by which it was supposed that the House really had a discretion in enforcing the penalty. The House must register the opinion of the Speaker, or else the latter could not possibly remain in his Office. His Amendment was contained in the recommendation of the Committee of 1878 on this subject, and why had it been departed from? However, Irish Members had seen with indignation that this was directed against themselves, and therefore left the Government to their responsibility and the indignation of the country. [Laughter.] Yes, let them take care that this high-handed proceeding did not receive criticism very different

    1693
    from what it had received in the House. He would leave that to time and to the country. It would be better that the Government should have the responsibility. It would be better for the country to know that the Government had exercised its power in a high-handed, illegal, unjustifiable manner.
    MR. COURTNEYreminded the House that a Resolution identical with the Amendment now proposed by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy became a Sessional Order of the House in 1878.
    MR. FINIGANsaid, he should not attempt to amend the Resolution, but should follow the course pursued by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). At the same time, he would reserve his right to enter his protest at a future stage against the big battalions which were brought to bear from the other side of the House against the Irish Members.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 195:Majority 170.—(Div. List, No.27.)
    Amendment proposed, in line 8, after the word "House," to insert the words "other and except that of voting."—(Mr. Courtney.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had not seen any reason to depart from the opinion he expressed yesterday. He should oppose the Amendment on the ground that suspension from voting as well as speaking was not too severe a punishment to inflict upon an offender. The course which the Government proposed should be taken was supported by high authority.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYER, in supporting the Amendment, pointed out that the deprivation of a Member of the right of voting had not been resorted to for 200 years; and the proposal of the Government, in his opinion, was unconstitutional.
    MAJOR NOLANthought this was a matter of a good deal of importance, because if the Amendment were acceded to it would remove any temptation there might be to weaken the votes of any Party.
    MR. SYNANthought the Government need not be desirous of disfranchising
    1694
    any constituency, especially as they had legions behind them to carry any measure they wanted, whether it was right or wrong.
    MR. P. MARTINthought it was an extraordinary thing that the Government should try to take advantage of the dark and evil precedents of 200 years ago. The Government Resolution would be considered in Ireland to be a Resolution framed for the purpose of disenfranchising the Irish constituencies. He held that the Conservative Party should not allow it to appear that it was their intention to operate unfairly on the Irish vote. He had no objection to the punishment of a Member if he offended; but he did object to punishing a constituency for the irregularity of a Member.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he entirely acquitted the Government of any desire to punish particular individuals, or to gain additional votes; but complained that they did not meet in a fair spirit Amendments proposed by Members who had no sympathy with obstruction. They would yield nothing seemingly but a comma.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 172: Majority 130.

    AYES.

    Allen, W. S.

    Lusk, Sir A.

    Balfour, Sir G.

    M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

    Baring, T. C.

    Makins, Colonel W. T.

    Bowyer, Sir G.

    Martin, P.

    Briggs, W. E.

    Nolan, Major J. P.

    Brogden, A.

    O'Brien, Sir P.

    Burt, T.

    O'Clery, K.

    Callan, P.

    O'Gorman Mahon, Col. The

    Cameron, C.

    Campbell, Sir G.

    O'Shaughnessy, R.

    Carington, hon. Col. W.

    Pennington, F.

    Chadwick, D.

    Redmond, W. A.

    Cobbold, T. C.

    Richard, H.

    Dillwyn, L. L.

    Ridley, E.

    Edge, S. R.

    Sheil, E.

    Errington, G.

    Sheridan, H. B.

    Evans, T. W.

    Swanston, A.

    Fawcett, H.

    Synan, E. J.

    Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

    Trevelyan, G. O.

    Gladstone, W. H.

    Gray, E. D.

    TELLERS.

    Holms, J.

    Courtney, L. H.

    Hutchinson, J. D.

    O'Conor, D. M.

    Jenkins, D. J.

    NOES.

    Alexander, Colonel C.

    Barrington, Viscount

    Allcroft, J. D.

    Bates, E.

    Allsopp, H.

    Bateson, Sir T.

    Anstruther, Sir W.

    Baxter, rt. hon. W. E.

    1695

    Beach, rt. hon. Sir M.H.

    Lee, Major V.

    Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

    Leighton, S.

    Birkbeck, E.

    Leith, J. F.

    Blackburne, Col. J. I.

    Leslie, Sir J.

    Blake, T.

    Lewis, O.

    Boord, T. W.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Bourke, hon. R.

    Lindsay, Colonel R. L.

    Bousfield, Col. N. G. P.

    Lloyd, T. E.

    Brooke, Lord

    Lopes, Sir M.

    Brooks, W. C.

    Lowther, hon. W.

    Bruen, H.

    Lowther rt. hn. J.

    Burghley, Lord

    Macartney, J. W. E.

    Burrell, Sir W. W.

    Mackintosh, C. F.

    Cartwright, F.

    M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.

    Cavendish, Lord F. C.

    Manners, rt. hon. Lord J.

    Cavendish, Lord G.

    Marjoribanks, Sir D. C.

    Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

    Marten, A. G.

    Clive, Col. hon. G. W.

    Massey, rt. hon. W. N.

    Cole, Col. hon. H. A.

    Mellor, T. W.

    Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

    Merewether, C. G.

    Cordes, T.

    Mills, A.

    Corry, J. P.

    Mills, Sir C. H.

    Cotton, W. J. R.

    Monk, C. J.

    Crichton, Viscount

    Montgomery, Sir G. G.

    Cross, rt. hon. R. A.

    Moray, Col. H. D.

    Cubitt, G.

    Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.

    Cuninghame, Sir W.

    Muncaster, Lord

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Mundella, A. J.

    Dalrymple, C.

    Newdegate, C. N.

    Davenport, W. B.

    Noel, rt. hon. G. J.

    Denison, C. B.

    Northcote, rt. hn. Sir S. H.

    Digby, Col. hon. E.

    Eaton, H. W.

    Onslow, D.

    Edmonstone, Admiral Sir W.

    Peek, Sir H.

    Pender, J.

    Egerton, hon. A. F.

    Percy, Earl

    Elcho, Lord

    Polhill-Turner, Capt. F.

    Elphinstone, Sir J.D.H.

    Price, Captain G. E.

    Emlyn, Viscount

    Price, W. E.

    Ewing, A. O.

    Puleston, J. H.

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Ralli, P.

    Forester, C. T. W.

    Ramsay, J.

    Forsyth, W.

    Ridley, Sir M. W.

    Fremantle, hon. T. F.

    Ripley, H. W.

    Garfit, T.

    Ritchie, C. T.

    Gathorne-Hardy, hn. A.

    Roberts, J.

    Giffard, Sir H. S.

    Russell, Lord A.

    Giles, A.

    Russell, Sir C.

    Gorst, J. E.

    Sackville, S. G. S.

    Gower, hon. E. F. L.

    Salt, T.

    Grant, A.

    Samuelson, B.

    Gregory, G. B.

    Sanderson, T. K.

    Hamilton, rt. hn. Lord G.

    Sandon, Viscount

    Scott, Lord H.

    Hamilton, hon. R. B.

    Scott, M. D.

    Hamond, C. F.

    Seely, C.

    Hanbury, R. W.

    Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J.

    Harrison, J. F.

    Hay, rt. hn. Sir J. C. D.

    Severne, J. E.

    Herbert, H. A.

    Sidebottom, T. H.

    Herbert, hon. S.

    Simon, Serjeant J.

    Hildyard, T. B. T.

    Simonds, W. B.

    Hill, A. S.

    Smith, F. C.

    Hinchingbrook, Visc.

    Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

    Holker, Sir J.

    Smollett, P. B.

    Holland, Sir H. T.

    Stanhope, hon. E.

    Holt, J. M.

    Stanley, rt. hn. Col. F.

    Hope, A. J. B. B.

    Stanton, A. J.

    Hughes, W. B.

    Starkey, L. R.

    Isaac, S.

    Stewart, M. J.

    Kavanagh, A. MacM.

    Sykes, C.

    Lawrence, Sir J. C.

    Talbot, C. R. M.

    Learmonth, A.

    Talbot, J. G.

    1696

    Taylor, D.

    Wedderburn, Sir D.

    Taylor, rt. hn. Col. T.E.

    Wheelhouse, W. S. J.

    Tennant, C.

    Whitbread, S.

    Thwaites, D.

    Whitley, E.

    Thynne, Lord H. F.

    Wilmot, Sir H.

    Tollemache, hon. W.F.

    Wolff, Sir H. D.

    Torrens, W. T. M'C.

    Wynn, C. W. W.

    Tremayne, Lt.-Col. A.

    Yarmouth, Earl of

    Vivian, H. H.

    Yeaman, J.

    Walker, O. O.

    Walter, J.

    TELLERS.

    Watney, J.

    Dyke, Sir W. H.

    Watson, rt. hon. W.

    Winn, R.

    MR. CALLANwas about to propose the Amendment standing in his name, when—
    MR. SPEAKERpointed out to the hon. Member that the House had already negatived the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper, with regard to the Chairman of Ways and Means taking part in carrying out the Resolution. If the Amendment now to be proposed applied to the same subject, the hon. Member could not bring it forward. But if the hon. Member did not propose to raise the same question, then he would be in Order.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he was just rising to withdraw the first part of his Amendment, and to move the second, which was to the effect that when the Chairman of Committees reported an offence to the Speaker, the Speaker should allow the Member in question to defend himself, withdraw his statements, or make an apology for his conduct during the space of 10 minutes. He did not intend to press the Amendment to a division, and simply recommended it to the consideration of the House. He felt bound, however, to enter his protest against the conduct of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), who had been constituted the Leader of the Party in this matter, had got them into this mess, and had then absented himself from the House.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 12, after the word "House," to insert the words "when the Member so named shall be permitted to offer such explanation, defence, or apology as he may see fit for a time not exceeding ten minutes, after which."—(Mr. Callan.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put and negatived.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONthought the House had now arrived at a stage when it was desirable to criticize the wording of the Resolution before it

    1697
    was put from the Chair and agreed to. That he might be in Order in doing so, he should conclude by moving the Amendment which stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz). ["Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he had called by name on all those hon. Members who had Notices of Amendment on the Paper; but if any hon. Member wished to propose an addition to the Resolution it was open to him to do so.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had an addition to move to it, which he proposed to explain to the House.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONwished to know whether the Amendment of the hon. Member came before that of the hon. Member for Birmingham?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that when he called upon the different Members who had Notices of Amendment on the Paper there had been no answer to the call. It was, nevertheless, competent to any hon. Member to propose an Amendment to any part of the Resolution following the words to which the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) applied.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONobserved, that the Amendment of which the hon. Member for Birmingham had given Notice came after that which had just been negatived by the House, and proceeded to move it. His chief object, however, in rising was to make one or two remarks on the latter part of the Resolution, which, if adopted in its present form, might, he was afraid, lead to a very considerable waste of time. It was provided by that part of the Resotion that—
    "If any Member be suspended three times in one Session under this Order, his suspension on the third occasion shall continue for one week, and until a Motion has been made, upon -which it shall be decided at one Sitting, by the House, whether the suspension shall then cease, or for what longer period it shall continue; and on the occasion of such Motion, the Member may, if he desires it, be heard in his place."
    Now, he did not take exception to the mildness of the penalty which it was proposed to inflict on the offending Member, but to the consequences which were likely to ensue if the matter were to be debated in that House in the way authorized by the Resolution. If a Member were suspended three times in one Session, and the suspension on the third
    1698
    occasion continued for a week, or for a longer time, until a Motion had been made either for relieving him from suspension or for continuing it for a longer time, one of two things would take place. Either the House would be of opinion. that the suspension for the one week was sufficient, and that the suspension might be removed, or else they might be of opinion that the offence was of so grave a character as to merit a longer period of suspension. In that case Motion and debate would be necessary; but why, he asked, did the Government insist upon inflicting on the House any debate on the conduct of a Member if, in the judgment of the House, the offence had been sufficiently atoned for by a week's suspension? In short, the effect of the Resolution was that, after a week's suspension, a debate could not be avoided; and that debate, though it might not be long, would not be confined to the conduct of the Member inculpated, but would extend to the conduct of the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees, which it would be in the power of any hon. Member to discuss at length. Those objections to the wording of the Resolution might, he contended, be met by the adoption of a simpler mode of procedure, which would secure that a normal punishment should be inflicted after a second or third offence, without having the matter brought before the House again by a formal Motion, which would lead to a discussion which would be productive of unnecessary waste of time, and of comments on the conduct of the authorities in that House which it was undesirable to provoke. The penalty might be extended to a fortnight or a month, instead of a week, if the House thought fit; but, unless it were the opinion of the House that a still severer punishment was required, the matter ought, in his opinion, to be concluded without any further discussion. Deeming that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham would improve the clause, he begged to move it to put himself in Order.
    Amendment proposed, in line 15, to leave out the words "three times," and insert the word "twice."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'three times' stand part of the Question."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas well aware that any proposal which the Government might make on so delicate a subject was open to criticism. The terms of the Resolution, however, had been very carefully considered, and he trusted the House would agree to it as it stood. He did not think, he might add, that the criticisms of the noble Lord were by any means unanswerable. The noble Lord admitted that in the event of a Motion being made to extend the punishment beyond the time ordered it would be necessary that a debate should take place, and that was the theory on which the Government had proceeded. They had recognized the importance of giving the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees an opportunity of putting an immediate stop to an offence which required to be dealt with on the spur of the moment; but they had not deemed it right to give any authority, however high, acting upon so short a notice, and possibly in a thin House, unprepared to deal with the question, the power of suspending a Member for a considerable time. That was a serious matter, and one which, in their opinion, ought to be left to the judgment of the House itself. Therefore it was provided that, whenever it was found desirable to propose a more severe sentence, the matter should be brought under the notice of the House, at such an interval of time as would give ample opportunity for the House to know what was really going on, for Members to secure for themselves the consideration of the subject, and for the offending Member himself to consider what course he ought to take—whether to make any submission, or offer any explanation which might satisfy the House. The object of the Government was to shorten the proceeding pointed at by the noble Lord, by providing that a Member should remain suspended until his suspension was taken off. In the case, therefore, of a Motion for the cessation of the suspension, there would in all probability be no lengthened discussion, because everybody would be desirous of shortening the proceedings; while the noble Lord himself saw the expediency of having the question discussed in the event of an increase of the penalty being proposed.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTwished to have some explanation as to the mode
    1700
    of proceeding in the event of a Motion for the cessation or continuance of the suspension of a Member being made. Was the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees to be introduced in any way into the business? They were the persons who had been most conversant with all that had taken place; and he did not know from whom, if not from them, the House could receive that information which it was desirable to receive before it could decide on the matter. But one of the chief difficulties in the case was that which had been pointed out by his noble Friend behind him—that the debate, under the words of the Resolution, would be likely to turn very much on the conduct of those two authorities of the House. There might also be a variety of Motions made for the further suspension of a Member for a week, or a fortnight, or a month; while there would be no certainty as to what the punishment for the offence committed really was. Under these circumstances, the House was, he thought, entitled to have further information from the Government as to the mode of procedure under the Resolution.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the purport of the Resolution as a whole could hardly be fairly judged unless each clause of it was taken in its proper sequence. If that were done, the hon. and learned Gentleman would see that each of the three punishments which would be inflicted under the Resolution would be brought about by the action of some Member of the House other than the Speaker or Chairman of Committees. On coming to the final stage the House would, therefore, naturally look, either to the Member who moved on the previous occasion, or to the Leader of the House; and he thought there could be no doubt that neither the Speaker nor the Chairman of Committees would be called on to say a single word on the final proposal that would be made. There was, therefore, no reason why the conduct of the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees should be made the subject of discussion. Indeed, the Resolution had been carefully worded, so, as far as possible, to avoid any contingency of that kind.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERwas of opinion that both the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had somewhat underrated

    1701
    the inconvenience against which his noble Friend behind him wished to guard. An offence which necessitated the suspension of a Member for a week would probably lead to a debate in every case, while any proposal to continue the suspension would certainly give rise to a prolonged discussion. The time of the House would therefore, he thought, be saved if the suggestion of his noble Friend were adopted, and the Resolution were made self-acting.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEasked at what stage of the proceedings of the House was the question of suspension to be entertained—was it to be a question of Privilege?
    MR. SYNANasked, what difference would it make to the House to have its time wasted on the second or third occasion? It was only a question of tweedledum or tweedledee.
    MR. EVANSwas also of opinion that the Resolution as it stood would have the effect of leading to a considerable waste of the time of the House.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSreplied, that the Government, having carefully considered the whole question, were of opinion that the course proposed by the Resolution was the best that could be devised. The suspension of a Member from the discharge of his Parliamentary duties was a very serious matter, and one upon which it was deemed right that the House should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion. He would also point out that the offence against which the Resolution was directed might differ very much in the degree of its enormity according as it was committed one day after another with the obvious intention of despising the Rules of the House, or at longer intervals in the course of a Session; so that the varying degrees of the offence would not be adequately provided for if the Resolution were passed in accordance with the suggestions of the noble Lord opposite. He might add, in answer to the question of the noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), that a matter of this kind would naturally come on as a question of Privilege.
    SIR HENRY JAMESargued that if the Resolution was allowed to remain unaltered, it would be necessary in every case to have a debate before the sentence of suspension could be removed. The whole question of the sentence which had been passed would thus be
    1702
    reviewed, and greater inconvenience would be the result. These Resolutions were aimed at Obstructionists, and not those who wished a matter of this kind to end as soon as possible; and, therefore, every advantage of the Privileges of debate would be taken. It would, in his opinion, be much better that there should be no such discussion.
    MR. CALLANthanked the Government for the merciful consideration they had shown in their reply to the remarks of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition; and he hoped the noble Marquess would see the propriety, after the discussion which had arisen, of withdrawing his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEmoved the insertion, after the word "made," of the words "at the commencement of Public Business," as defining the time at which an offending Member might be heard in his place.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERasked Mr. Speaker if this Amendment was not unnecessary?
    MR. SPEAKER: The question will involve and affect the privileges of a Member of this House. I understand that under this Resolution a Member of this House might be suspended for a limited time, and when that time ceases a debate might arise as to the cessation or continuance of that suspension. No doubt, the question, affecting, as it does, the services of a Member, should have precedence as a question of Privilege; and, therefore, the words proposed by the noble Lord are not, in my judgment, necessary.
    Amendment proposed, in line 16, after the word "made," to insert the words "at the commencement of Public Business."—(Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought the question which had been brought up in the course of the debate by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) and other hon. Members required to be cleared up. That question was whether the Resolution did or did not limit the present power of the House to take notice of reprehensible

    1703
    conduct on the part of Members. The Government seemed to think that it did not; but he was inclined to think that some of the words did seem to be a limitation, and as this was not desirable, he moved the addition to the Resolution of these words:—
    "Provided always, That nothing in this Resolution shall be taken to deprive the House of the power of proceeding against any Member according to ancient usages."
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the Question, to add the words, "Provided always, That nothing in this Resolution shall be taken to deprive the House of the power of proceeding against any Member according to ancient usages."—(Mr. William Edward Forster.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had no objection to the adoption of the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, instead of those of a similar effect which he desired to have embodied in the Resolution.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved, that the Government would not oppose the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question, as amended, put.
    MAJOR NOLANwished to point out that when these Resolutions were carried into effect, Irish Members would find their difficulties in the performance of their duty in that House greatly increased. ["No, no!"] He would give the House an instance of what he meant by pointing out that when he came into Parliament Irish Members were hardly ever put on Committees. They on one occasion, however, challenged every name proposed for a Committee, and the result was that ever since they had their numerical share of Members on Committees. He supposed that if they did that now they would be suspended. [Cries of"No!"] When the Irish Members came to London, they found themselves surrounded by an English atmosphere, in which, he supposed, there was the same amount of oxygen as in the Irish atmosphere; but the moral atmosphere by which the Irish Members found themselves surrounded in London was most depressing and demoralizing, and rendered them unfit for a proper discharge of their duties. They had almost
    1704
    nothing to read but English newspapers, and society was in every way possible against the Irish Members. By the Resolution they were now passing, Irish Members would be prevented from discharging their duty to their constituents if the course of duty happened to run counter to English public opinion. The other night the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) was visited with aquasi censure, because he happened not to belong to the majority. Irish Members ran a double chance, because they were in a minority as regarded either of the great English political Parties. He was quite aware that Irish Members had a great guarantee in the justice and impartiality of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair; but he verily believed that was their only guarantee when they attempted to press their notions upon the House.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, if this Resolution was regarded to any extent as a Party electioneering device, that was distinctly the fault of Her Majesty's present Administration. They gave to this measure a distinct partizan character; they deliberately omitted to consult the Leaders of the Liberal Opposition on the subject. Hitherto it had always been the custom of a Government to consult the Leaders of the Opposition with reference to the Business of the House. As to this Resolution, it was distinctly a part of the Liverpool electioneering manœuvre. Her Majesty's Government pretended that the operation of this Resolution would have the authority of the House; but they, in fact, threw the responsibility of preventing obstruction upon the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees. That might be Ministerial morality; but it seemed to him to be common-place vulgar hypocrisy, and it would not be successful. The whole of the debate had been conducted under the direct terror and menace of an appeal to public opinion against any Member who even ventured to criticize the Resolutions—[Murmurs of conversation.]
    MR. SULLIVANasked the Speaker whether his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan was in Order in interrupting the conversation of hon. Members opposite?
    MR. O'DONNELL, resuming, went on to say that they had compelled the Government to show their hands, and they would henceforth treat the matter

    1705
    as a fight between Party and Party. Ministers had furnished the Irish Members with a fresh reason for distrusting the justice and the honesty of the present Advisers of the Crown; and from one end of Ireland to the other the proceedings of the Government would form a staple subject of political canvass long after the next Session. The Irish Members would derive new courage from the unfairness with which they had been treated. He would not even vote against the Resolution proposed by the Government. He had to thank the Government for placing themselves so admirably in the wrong. They had tried to discredit the Liberal Opposition, and they had failed. They had tried to discredit the Irish National Party, and they had failed.
    MR. FINIGANsaid, the miserable instrument of the Government could not and would not arrest for one moment the progress of national progress in Ireland, and would only add to the number of those who approved of an active policy on the part of Irish Members in the House. The Irish people had suffered from three long centuries of English misrule; but their spirit was not yet dead, and, please God, it never would be. The hope which had animated so many exiles from his country, which had illumined the dungeons of Irish prisoners, which had inspired Irish martyrs on English scaffolds, would not be dimmed by the present miserable instrument introduced by the Government—the hope of an Irish Parliament, and the hope and the right of the Irish people to self-government would still remain. It would only be intensified and quickened, and would make the Irish Members fight and struggle still more strenuously against the injustice of the House.
    MR. BIGGARwas rejoiced the Government had now thrown off the mask, so that henceforth Irish Members might understand that questions which came before the House were to be decided not by arguments based upon sound reason, but upon the ipse dixit and will of the Government of the day.
    MR. CALLANasked whether suspension from the service of the House would extend to service on a Private Bill Committee?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, if a Member who was serving on a Private Bill Committee
    1706
    were suspended, the matter would be reported by the Chairman of that Committee to the House, in the same manner as if a Member were prevented from voting by any accidental circumstance; and the same course would be taken by the House as was taken in the case of a Member prevented by any accidental reason from serving on a Private Bill Committee.
    Resolved,That, whenever any Member shall have been named by the Speaker, or by the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House, as disregarding the authority of the Chair, or abusing the Rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House, or otherwise, then, if the offence has been committed in the House, the Speaker shall forthwith put the question, on a Motion being made, no amendment, adjournment, or debate being allowed, 'That such Member be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of that day's sitting;' and, if the offence has been committed in a Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall, on a Motion being made, put the same question in a similar way, and if the Motion is carried shall forthwith suspend the proceedings of the Committee and report the circumstance to the House; and the Speaker shall thereupon put the same question, without amendment, adjournment, or debate, as if the offence had been committed in the House itself. If any Member be suspended three times in one Session, under this Order, his suspension on the third occasion shall continue for one week, and until a Motion has been made, upon which it shall be decided, at one sitting, by the House, whether the suspension shall then cease, or for what longer period it shall continue; and, on the occasion of such Motion, the Member may, if he desires it, be heard in his place: Provided always, That nothing in this Resolution shall be taken to deprive the House of the power of proceeding against any Member according to ancient usages.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Resolution be a Standing Order of this House."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    MR. DILLWYN, in moving—
    "That, in the last Session of a Parliament, it is inexpedient to constitute an untried experiment by which the proceedings of Parliament may be materially altered, and the privileges of Members lessened, as a Standing Order of the House,"
    said, that a Standing Order was a permanent Order; and, therefore, before it was finally decided on, he thought it was necessary that there should be some experience of its working. He must take exception to the speech of the Home Secretary in the previous night's debate, where he said the action of the Opposition was unpatriotic in not more strongly

    1707
    supporting the Government than they had done. He did think that the House had considered the matter in a very calm manner, and complained that what suggestions had been offered to the Government had not been met in a friendly and conciliatory spirit as they ought to have been, and suggested Amendments had been refused which he believed would ultimately have to be adopted if the Resolution was to be of practical value. He was of opinion, therefore, that the Resolution should be made a Sessional Order, as it would probably have to be altered; and anything which related to the rights and privileges of Members of Parliament ought to be looked upon as needing very calm deliberation and anxious thought, and ought not to be decided hurriedly. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the Leader of that House to give his proposal a favourable consideration. He did not think it wise for a Parliament which stood somewhat discredited with the country to pass Rules which should bind its successors.
    MR. COURTNEY, in seconding the Amendment, said, it was true that a Standing Order might be altered; but it would have to be a very bad one indeed before that was done. A Sessional Order, on the other hand, would be tried, and any defects it might have speedily remedied. He attributed a good deal of the importance attached to obstruction to the disproportionate notice given to this matter in the newspapers, in comparison with the brief records of the serious Business of the House.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the last Session of a Parliament, it is inexpedient to constitute an untried experiment by which the proceedings of Parliament may he materially altered, and the privileges of Members lessened, as a Standing Order of the House,"—(Mr. Dillwyn,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it seemed to him that the two hon. Members, and perhaps some other hon. Gentlemen, were under the impression that there was something very mysterious about a Standing Order
    1708
    of that House which made it unalterable, like an order of the Medes and Persians. He did not understand that by making this Resolution a Standing Order they deprived themselves of the power of amending it in any way that might be necessary. What they did by making it a Standing Order was this—they rendered it unnecessary at the beginning of a Session to go over the whole ground again to make it an Order of the House. Looking at the matter as Members of Parliament, and not of a Party, he thought it would be a great error to make this Resolution a mere Sessional Order, and leave the question to be done all over again at the commencement of the next Parliament. Having seen the rise and growth of this evil of obstruction, he thought it was their duty to leave a remedy for it to the next Parliament, which could cancel or alter it if necessary.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER, after much consideration, could not support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), that this Order should be merely a Sessional one. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they were providing a remedy for an evil of which the growth, if not the origin, had taken place in this Parliament, and it was their duty to provide a safeguard against a danger which they believed to exist. The debate had very clearly shown that that danger was obstruction, not of special legislation, but of the ordinary Business of Parliament, and it would not be right if they did not leave on record their view of the way in which it ought to be dealt with. If the next Parliament found that experience was against the remedy, or that the feelings of their constituents or themselves were opposed to it, nothing would be more easy than for them to alter it.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid the Resolution, when recorded, would show that this Parliament had been impeded for three years. He hoped the hon. Member for Swansea would not press his Amendment to a division.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 166; Noes 20: Majority 146.—(Div. List, No. 29.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Ordered,That the said Resolution be a Standing Order of this House.

  BEER DEALERS' RETAIL LICENCES BILL.— [BILL 65.]
  (Mr. Ritchie, Mr. Gorst, Mr. W. M. Torrens, Mr. Mundella.)
  BEER DEALERS' RETAIL LICENCES BILL.— [BILL 65.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. RYLANDSreminded the Government of their promise last Session that no Private Bill should be taken at a Saturday Sitting. He hoped the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill would not press it.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he would certainly not stand in the way of the opinion of the House. The Bill, however, was of great importance; and if it was to pass into law, it was exceedingly desirable that this should be done without
    1710
    any unnecessary delay; because since the Bill had been introduced to the House no less than between 2,000 and 3,000 applications had been made for these licences in the Metropolitan district. These applications would all come on for adjudication next month; and what he desired to do was to place the power which had been asked for by every bench of magistrates in the country in their hands before they came to decide upon all those applications. He hoped the opposition which had been notified would be withdrawn, and that the Bill would come on another night.
    Committee deferred till Monday next.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock till Monday next.