§ MR. NEWDEGATEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, When it is the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to invite the House to proceed with the Adjourned Debate on the Parliamentary Oaths? He explained that he put the Question because he found that the adjourned debate stood on the Order Book the last Order for Tuesday next.
MR. GLADSTONEI think the Question of the hon. Member is perfectly justified by the facts; but, at the same time, I hope he will agree with me that, as the subject is likely to be raised tomorrow by the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, I should postpone my answer until that Motion has been disposed of.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI rise to put two Questions to you, Sir. I wish to ask you whether it is competent for a Member of this House to move 283 that a Resolution, formally submitted to the judgment of the House, put from the Chair, adopted by a majority of the Members present and voting, and recorded on the Journals of the House repeatedly acted upon by the House, and still unrescinded, is an illegal Motion? And, secondly, Sir, I wish to ask you whether, if such a Motion is in Order, it can be regarded as a Motion entitled to precedence, bearing in mind that more than a fortnight has elapsed since the passing of the Resolution referred to; and, if so, upon what ground precedence would be given to it?
§ MR. LABOUCHEREI wish further to ask you, Sir, whether it is not competent for any hon. Member, on any day lie may think fit, to raise a question of Privilege as to the arbitrary and illegal exclusion of an hon. Member duly returned by a constituency to this House before he has taken the necessary steps to bring himself within the full jurisdiction of the House?
§ MR. SPEAKERException has been taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon to the word "illegal," used in the proposed Resolution of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle. I must admit that there is some force in that objection. I have understood the expression "illegal" be intended by the hon. Baronet as indicating the rescinding of the Resolution of the 26th April, 1881; but I am bound to say that I think the hon. Baronet would have been better advised if he had proposed, according to the usual Parliamentary practice, to move that the Resolution of the House be rescinded. In regard to the other point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I have to say that if the hon. Baronet had thought fit yesterday to make a Motion on the letter of Mr. Bradlaugh having been read, and if that Motion had been in regular form, he would have been entitled to proceed with that Motion as a question of Privilege; and I cannot think that lie has forfeited his claim to have that question considered as a matter of Privilege by reason of his having, for the convenience of the House, postponed it until a future day. I think the answer I have given already sufficiently answers the Question of the hon. Member for Northampton.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI wish, Sir, to ask if I am right in infer- 284 ring from your answer to my second Question that you regard the Motion as a question of Privilege, and not as a question of Order?
§ MR. SPEAKERI think it is a question of Privilege, and not a question of Order.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI do not think hon. Members have at all gathered whether the terms of the Motion are in Order, because I would submit, before you give a final decision on the subject, when several hon. Members were suspended, one after the other, before the Easter Recess, it was proposed by some other hon. Members to call in question the action of the House as illegal and arbitrary; and you ruled that any calling in question the action of the House would be a breach of Order, which you would be obliged to meet with very severe penalties. Therefore, I would like to ask you to decide clearly whether the hon. Baronet's Motion is in Order; and, if so, how it differs from the Motion which the Irish Members were anxious to make with respect to the suspension of a large number of that body, and which Motion was pronounced to be a gross breach of Order?
§ MR. SPEAKERI have already stated that the expression "illegal" in the Resolution of the hon. Baronet is open to exception, and I should advise the hon. Baronet that that expression should be withdrawn; and also upon this ground, that it bears the construction—it may bear it, although I have not put that construction upon it myself—that an expression of that kind is scarcely respectful to the House, and reflects upon a Resolution which this House has already passed.
§ MR. WARTONI wish to ask, Sir, whether, in the event of the hon. Baronet refusing to withdraw the word "illegal," you would refuse to allow the Motion to be put?
§ MR. SPEAKERI am not prepared to answer that Question until I see the Resolution in its revised form.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFMay I ask whether, to-morrow, it will be competent for any hon. Member, on the Motion of the hon. Baronet, to move that it is not a question of Privilege?
§ MR. DILLWYNI would further ask whether it will not be competent for any hon. Member to move that it is a question of Privilege with respect to the il- 285 legal exclusion of a Member from this House?
§ MR. SPEAKERI must wait to see what Motion may be made before I give an opinion upon any Motion which may be taken in this matter. I am not prepared to say now, upon a hypothetical question, what course it would be right to take.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFI should like to ask whether, when the hon. Member for Carlisle brings forward his Motion to-morrow, before he rises or after he submits his Motion, it will be competent for any Member to move as a question of Order, or as an Amendment to that Motion, that it is not a question of Privilege?
§ MR. NEWDEGATEMay I further ask you, Sir, whether, if the subject of the Notice given by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle is brought forward in this House as a question of Privilege, it will not, and ought not, to take precedence of all other Business?
§ MR. SPEAKERI have already stated that I consider that the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, when put in the proper form, would be brought forward certainly as a question of Privilege; and if an Amendment were moved to the effect that it was not a question of Privilege, that would be, in effect, to challenge the ruling of the Chair.
MR. GORSTI beg to give Notice that, when the hon. Baronet makes the Motion with which the House is not yet acquainted, if that Motion should raise substantially the same question as that on which the House has already expressed its judgment, I shall ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is competent for an hon. Member to bring forward, in the same Session, the same question on which it has already expressed an opinion?