§ Order read for the Consideration of Mr. O'Donnell's conduct on Saturday last, as reported by the Chairman of the Committee on the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill.
MR. GLADSTONESir, the House is generally aware, I believe, of the subject-matter on which the Order of the Day is founded. It is referred to on page 627 of the Votes as follows:—
Mr. Playfair then reported to Mr. Speaker that Mr. O'Donnell, the Member for Dungarvan, sitting in his place, had insulted the Chairman, saying that the action taken by him was an infamy. Mr. Speaker thereupon addressed the House, and stated that it was his duty, in consequence of the Chairman's report, to submit the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell to the judgment of the House. Motion made, and Question put, 'That the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell be taken into consideration on Monday next.'I rise, I believe, in conformity with precedent and with, convenience, to take the liberty of suggesting to the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) that it might be advantageous if he were to take this opportunity of submitting any statement on the subject of the proceedings in question which he 1275 may think himself called upon to make.
§ MR. HEALYI wish, Sir, to ask a question on a point of Order. I wish to know whether the Motion which the Prime Minister has submitted is a matter of Privilege; whether, if it be a matter of Privilege, the consideration of it will be prolonged as a question of Privilege or not; if it be so, whether Notice to that effect was given on Saturday; and whether Privilege can be made the subject of a Motion; also, if it be not a question of Privilege, whether there is not on the Votes of the House a Resolution that the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill shall have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion until the House shall otherwise order?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe House ordered that this matter should be taken into consideration to-day. It is a question of Privilege, and the proceeding is quite in Order.
§ MR. O'DONNELLI received a communication, signed by the Clerk of the House, informing me that my conduct would be taken into consideration. I sit here awaiting the taking of my conduct into consideration.
MR. GLADSTONESir, the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) has been appealed to in a manner which, I believe, is usual, and which, I trust, was not discourteous. At least, if it were discourteous, that was contrary to my intention, and I do not believe it was discourteous. The hon. Member has, however, declined to afford the House the assistance of any explanation. [Mr. O'DONNELL: No, no.] The hon. Member, I say, has declined to afford the House the assistance of any explanation anterior to its consideration of his conduct. Sir, under those circumstances, we approach that consideration necessarily with very great disadvantage. The hon. Gentleman appears to have cried out in the course of the proceedings of this House, but not in the course of the debate, that the conduct of the Gentleman who was in charge of the proceedings of the House as Chairman of Committees was an infamy. [Mr. O'DONNELL: No.] If I have not in my power the means of obtaining the elementary facts of the case it is a clear proof how desirable it was that the hon. Member should have afforded us an explana- 1276 tion. If the hon. Member is ready to give it I shall be most ready to retire in order that it may be given, for I feel keenly the disadvantage under which we are placed and the necessity which that disadvantage might impose upon us, and which otherwise might have been mitigated.
§ MR. O'DONNELLI trust the right hon. Gentleman will not take it that I intended to be discourteous when I said that I wait here to answer any accusation which may be brought against me.
MR. GLADSTONEThe accusation is upon the Votes. There is there recorded not only an expression which, of course, involves a matter of opinion—namely, that the Chairman had been insulted—but there is also recorded the fact that the hon. Gentleman cried out under the circumstances I have described that the action taken by the Chairman was an infamy. The hon. Gentleman says he waits to have some accusation made against him. Much less acuteness than is possessed by the hon. Member would have sufficed to show him what it was. It. is the simple fact of his having declared in his place, though not during a debate, that the course taken by the Chairman was an infamy. That is the accusation, and I bound to say that, unexplained, it is a very severe accusation, a most grave accusation, and I must take the accusation as it is before me, without explanation, without apology, without regret, as being a statement of conduct which is deliberately adhered to. The hon. Gentleman has the opportunity of correcting me, but I understand that his conduct is deliberately adhered to.
§ MR. O'DONNELLI am quite prepared to answer the instant a charge is formulated. I may add that I was suspended before any proceedings were taken, or any reference was made to me. I am not aware what proceedings took place after 16 Members, myself included, were violently driven from our deliberations in this House.
MR. GLADSTONEI think the hon. Gentleman does not understand. With what he has termed his previous conduct I have, upon the present occasion, no concern whatever. I apprehend that I should entirely mistake my duty—which is to become, if I can, the organ of the reasonable sentiment of the House—I should entirely mistake my duty were I to go back upon proceedings 1277 entirely anterior to and independent of the subject-matter to which our attention is immediately called. The hon. Gentleman might have been perfectly inaccessible to any just charge, or he might not. I do not enter into that; I have nothing to do with it. What I have to do with is this. A certain proceeding having been taken by the constituted authority of the House, who was in the Chair, presiding over our deliberations, the hon. Gentleman, not in debate, but during the Sitting of the House, and in his place, designated that proceeding as an infamy. It is not in the slightest degree necessary for me to use language of heat on this occasion. Without using any language of heat, I must say that if upon any occasion a Member of this House desires to challenge the proceedings of the constituted guardian of the debates of the House for the time, his absolute duty to himself, to that guardian, and to the House is to make that challenge in a regular manner, and if it be a challenge in the nature of a censure then the principle which I have stated applies with an enhanced force. If the hon. Member thought that the proceeding of the Chairman of Committees was open to animadversion, his course, I apprehend, was plain. It was to give notice of a Motion on that subject, and in a regular method to call the attention of the House to it.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORI rise to Order. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has on the Paper a Notice that at a quarter-past 4 o'clock he would move—
That the Orders of the Day subsequent to the Order for Consideration of the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell be postponed till after the Notice of Motion relating to the Business of the House (Urgency).I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman, not having carried that Motion, is in Order in discussing the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell himself?
§ MR. SPEAKERI have already stated that this is a question of Privilege, and it takes precedence of other matters. The right hon. Gentleman is quite in Order.
§ MR. O'DONNELLOn the question of Order and Privilege, I have received a communication from the Clerks of the House, stating that my conduct will be taken into consideration. I want to have some official information from you, 1278 Sir, from the Chairman of Committees, or from the Leader of the House, as to the nature of the charge. When that charge has been made I am prepared, at the call of the House, at once to make my statement.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe House has already made an Order that this matter should be taken into consideration to-day. The House is now considering the matter, and the proceedings are quite in Order.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERI rise, Sir, to ask a question which may facilitate the proper discussion of this matter. I think it is usual, when questions of Privilege arise, that a Motion should be made founded upon the conduct of the Member whose conduct is called in question. That Motion is usually not of a punitive character in the first instance, but only to the effect that his conduct is a breach of the Privileges of the House. It is then open to the Member in due form to volunteer any explanation he may think proper, and the other Members are also in possession of their privilege, because they can address the House on the original Question. Having got through that stage, the House can subsequently determine whether it is necessary to go any further.
§ MR. SPEAKERThis debate is not on a Motion, but on the Order of the Day. The House has actually ordered that this matter should be taken into consideration to-day, and unless it is prepared to stultify itself the House must proceed with this Order.
MR. GLADSTONEAs to the method of procedure, I am ready, Sir, to attend to the slightest suggestion from you; but I believe what I have thus far done is in conformity with the usages of the House. Whatever Motion is made, it must be made with grounds to support it. The reasons bearing upon the case must be adduced, and the disadvantage under which we stand, through not knowing what explanation the hon. Member might be disposed to offer, would be precisely the same whatever Motion bearing upon this case may be made. I say it is the plain duty of a Member of this House, who wishes to challenge the proceeding of the constituted director or guardian of its debates, to challenge it in the most regular manner by a Motion. On this occasion, unfortunately, that was not done, 1279 and that was the first point of error of judgment, if I may say so, on the part of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvan. The next point of error was that that challenge was made in a manner which I believe to have been entirely irregular and unauthorized. It was made in language of a character totally unsuited to the debates of this House, even as between Member and Member; but still more so as between a Member of this House and the Speaker in the Chair, or the Chairman of Committees, who, in Committee, exercises the same authority for the time as is given to the Speaker. To apply to such a person the expression "infamy," even if it had been attempted to be done in a more regular manner, would, it appears to me, constitute so grave a breach of the ordinary usages of this House as to demand its most serious notice. Now, how do we stand? These two points appear to me to be sufficiently grave; but the hon. Gentleman has, as I think, most unfortunately, put upon us the necessity of considering the third point. He says he wishes to know what is the accusation against him. The accusation against him has already, before the meeting of the House, been placed under his view. It is contained in the printed Votes, and is to the effect that the hon. Member said that the action taken by the Chairman of Committees was an infamy. When the hon. Member for Dungarvan calls for an as accusation and declines to reckon as an accusation this most grave allegation, I have no choice but, for the time at least, to consider him as admitting, adhering to, and affirming the words which he has unfortunately made use of. If the hon. Gentleman deems that such words, irrespective of the manner of their usage, and still more when combined with the manner of their usage, constitute no charge, and are within the liberties of the Members of this House, I must own I cannot resist the conclusion, though I arrive at it with regret, that such a fact is a fact calling for the most serious notice of the House, requiring someone on the part of the House to make a Motion, which I have undertaken to do by virtue of the Office I hold, which upon the facts as they stand before him shall give effect to what he believes to be the probable, natural, and just sentiment of the House. As the hon. Gentleman ad- 1280 heres to the improper words he used, and declines to offer any explanation or defence of them, I wish to submit the following Motion—"That Mr. O'Donnell be suspended from the service of the House for fourteen days."
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. O'Donnell be suspended from the service of the House for the term of fourteen days."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
§ MR. SPEAKERhaving put the Question,
§ MR. SPEAKERI have put the Motion to the House; I have not thought it necessary to call for a Seconder.
§ MR. O'DONNELLSir, I am at last indebted to the justice of the Premier for a statement of the charge brought against me. With regard to the statement in the Votes, I have heard the accuracy of those Votes impeached on all sides to-day; and in a matter of such gravity, I felt it was due to the House, and I venture to think it was due to the accused person, to know what were the terms of the accusation, and the precise scope of the charges made against him. As I gather from the Premier, the terms of the accusation made against me in my absence on Saturday last, I have to state that those words are seriously inaccurate, and change and alter the drift, purport, and object of my remarks. In the course of the explanation I have to make, I trust I shall say nothing that will savour of unseemly bravado; but I trust I shall be allowed to state with accuracy and fullness what I did say, and to explain the reasons why I made such observations as I did. I throw myself, without fear, upon the justice of the House and of the country—and whether it be the decision of the House to altogether reject, to minimize, or increase the measure of punishment suggested by the Premier, I am quite prepared, in all humility, but in all firmness, to accept the consequences. Sir, I did not, as alleged, assert that the action of the Chairman was an infamy. I stated, I admit, several matters, some of which directly impugned the conduct of the Chairman; I said, addressing the Chair—"You sin against all the traditions of your Office." I admit the irre- 1281 gularity of my apostrophe to the Chair; but I had no opportunity of making a defence. I was in the House sitting quietly listening to a debate when I found myself Named as guilty of Obstruction. I had received no Notice of such charge; and during all my proceedings in this House I could perceive nothing in the conduct of the Chair towards me that led me to imagine for an instant that I was not considered by the Chairman an orderly Member of the House, lawfully exercising the duty I was sent there to perform. I specially meant by that statement that, in my opinion, the duty of the Chair is to warn an offender of transgressing the Rules of the House before any proceedings were taken against an alleged offender. I understood it was the common right of all Members of the House to expect to receive such warning in clear and unmistakable terms. I remembered that when the Standing Order invoked against me was introduced by the Leader of the House, he expressly declared that no Member would be punished under it who had not been expressly warned that he was transgressing the Orders of the House, and that it was only for persistent disobedience, after warning, that a Member was to be proceeded against. I desired emphatically to declare that Mr. Lyon Playfair, in suspending me without a syllable of warning, was acting in a manner in which none of his Predecessors would have acted. I have been in this House under a Chairman of Committees of undoubted ability and high impartiality—a Gentleman as opposed to me politically as one man can be to another—and I say with the most absolute confidence that had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes) been Chairman of Committees, I should not have been suspended without receiving the most distinct notice of the danger I was incurring. I meant to say that when I said that the Chairman sinned against the traditions of his Office, and I am prepared for the consequences of such a statement. I also said, not in particular reference to the Chairman, but as a matter of self-defence and exculpation, though, undoubtedly, that self-defence and exculpation were intended to impugn the Chairman's conduct—"I have been absent all night, and I have been foully Named as guilty of Obstruction." 1282 I claim the right to explain what I meant when I said so. I meant, as a fact, I had been absent all night; and when I said I had been foully Named as guilty of Obstruction, I meant to say that in all my action during that operation of the Sitting, and all the previous Sittings, I acted independently and honestly in the discharge of my duties to my constituents, and according to the most cherished traditions of Order. I beg to remind this House that, in reference to the discussion of the Crimes Promotion Bill—the new Coercion Bill—I never professed to expect anything from prolonged discussion or debate upon its provisions. I did not, in the slightest degree, cast any reflection upon any of my hon. Colleagues from Ireland when I made that statement on my own behalf; but I did say that it was hopeless to expect any amendment of that Bill, and I did recommend, before this assembled House—and it is within the knowledge of scores of Members—my hon. Colleagues from Ireland to let that Bill pass without any attempt at amendment. I begged them to let the Bill pass in all its unmitigated brutality. I urged my Colleagues to appeal to the Irish people. I said that the opinion of the Irish people among themselves was the only defence against the horrors of this brutal Bill. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are welcome to disagree with me in my estimate of the matter of that Bill; but I have a right to say what I stated in this House as to what my wishes were in regard to that Bill. I feel, at the same time, that my hon. Friends did their duty well and nobly in endeavouring, with hope against hope, to obtain an amendment of that Bill; and I feel that if the eyes of the Government had not been judicially darkened, they would have seen in the suggestions of my hon. Friends multitudes of occasions for making that Bill what it is not now—a Bill for the prevention of real crime in Ireland. I have put down a list, as I could gather them, of the votes I have given and speeches I have made in connection with this Bill during the past week, and I find, Sir, that, on Friday, during the time previous to my suspension, out of the whole 13 Divisions taken on that day I was present at only four. I find, Sir, that among the Members who voted with me on those occasions, and who were not 1283 suspended, were—I take the names from the lists of the House—Mr. Cowen, Sir Wilfrid Lawson, Mr. Errington, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. M'Laren, Mr. Jesse Collings, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. C. Russell, Mr. Caine, Mr. Brooks, Sir David Wedderburn, and Sir Patrick O'Brien. Those hon. Members were among my Colleagues in some or all of the Divisions; and when I said I had been "foully-suspended," I referred to the distinction then made between Irish and English Members by the Chairman. Not a single one of the English Members who went with me on those occasions through the Lobbies was suspended by the Chairman of Committees; and I venture to say, Sir, that the records of the Divisions will prove that hundreds of English Members have voted as often and more often than I upon this subject; and those English Members had not the excuse I had, that I was standing up for the liberties of my country. I might also say, in further explanation of the statement that I was "foully suspended," that I find the name of a distinguished Irish Member, a true and sterling Irishman, who, however, sits on the Liberal side of the House—I mention the hon. and gallant Colonel who sits for the County of Galway—as voting—and to his honour be it said—some 13 times against Government during that Friday night, and some 32 times in all against Her Majesty's Ministers, and in furtherance of that purpose which is falsely described as Obstruction in other Irish Members. All honour to that gallant Colonel who sits for the County Galway. But why those foul distinctions? With regard to my votes on Thursday, I voted only six out of nine times, on Wednesday only once—I am not aware how many Divisions took place on that day—and on Tuesday only twice in eight Divisions; and I say again that there are hundreds of English Members in this House who voted far oftener than I did. With regard to my speeches, in almost all cases, the observations that I addressed to the Committee upon the clauses before the Chair were strictly observations of a conversational and brief description according to the special and recognized manner of addresses that ought to be used in Committee. So far from obstructing the Committee by lengthened speeches, five out of six were half-a-minute or one-minute or two-minute observations, in 1284 answer to direct provocation coming from the Government, and especially from the Home Secretary, who was always ready to break out into invective against the Irish Members and their country. It was against those speeches of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who was always ready to make them, whether relevant or irrelevant, that I several times addressed the Committee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was the agent provocateur of the Treasury Bench, and it was against him that on Friday I made a couple of short observations and one lengthy speech. But that lengthy speech was on a most important question, the question of exempting certain districts and certain individuals from charges for extra constables and from the blood tax, matters of the utmost importance, on which I conscientiously did my utmost to make my meaning clear, and in which I did not repeat a single observation. On Thursday, I made a couple of brief observations by may of protest to the offensive remarks of the Home Secretary, who, instead of addressing himself to the Question before the House, accused the Irish Members in so many words of opposing the Bill out of sympathy with crime. In reply to that charge, I compressed my observations into the smallest possible compass. I also addressed a few words to the Committee in answer to the observations of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), who spoke of the soil of Ireland as wet with innocent blood. It is not for me to deny that unhappy fact; but I felt it my duty to state that other lands were also wet with innocent blood, and that against them no extravagant measures of coercion were proposed. I expressly mentioned on that occasion the discovery on that day of some more corpses in the River Thames as a reason why—["Question!"]—these continual taunts should not be addressed to Irish Members. My replies were in each case couched in the fewest possible number of words. During the whole debate upon Wednesday I did not utter a single word; and on Tuesday I asked a couple of questions, and made a five-minute speech. That is the whole of my contribution to debate during the past week. To complete my explanation, I will state that one series of observations were of the most necessary kind. Sir, 1285 there was an Amendment before the House for the purpose of introducing a certain reform in the Bill. ["Question!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERI have not thought it right up to this moment to interpose, because I am quite aware that the House is always ready to extend its indulgence to any Member whose personal conduct is under consideration. I am bound to say that the hon. Member is drawing very largely upon the indulgence of the House.
§ MR. O'DONNELLI understood that I was Named, and, as I said, foully Named, on the charge of cumulative Obstruction.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe question of the hon. Member's being Named is not now the Question before the House, and it is only in consideration of the personal position of the hon. Member before the House that I have allowed him to refer to these matters. I beg, however, to say that the Question before the House is the conduct, not of the Chair, but of the hon. Member for Dungarvan.
§ MR. O'DONNELLI was explaining nothing, Sir, but the identical words used, which were not the words imputed to me. That is what alone I was doing, and, Sir, having stated that, I not only stated that I had been absent all night, and had been foully Named as guilty of Obstruction, but I also said that a certain statement that had fallen from the Chair was an infamy. Sir, the charge against me is that I asserted that the action of the Chair was an infamy. I said that a certain statement was an infamy. Was that statement the statement of the Chair? Sir, I was sitting in the House when I saw the Chairman of Committees apparently take up a paper, which I presumed had been prepared for him, and read from that paper a number of statements relating, among other things and other times, to facts and times when he (the Chairman) was not in the House. Sir, Mr. Lyon Playfair did not, in relation to these facts and to these times, act on his own personal knowledge, but on what had occurred when he was not in the House. He acted on the faith of reports which were made to him, and the statement embodying those reports, which were false reports, was the statement that I characterized as an infamy. Sir, in particular reference to the clause under con- 1286 sideration, the Chairman spoke of the 19 hours that had been occupied, and stated that during those 19 hours and at other times a limited number of Members had systematically frustrated the progress of Business by proposing Amendments, some of which were practical and fair, but of which by far the greater number were only intended to raise by new forms questions which were already decided by large majorities. Those Amendments had been made the occasion for endless arguments, and were evidently framed to waste time. Sir, with regard to a large portion of the conduct and arguments referred to by Mr. Lyon Playfair, Mr. Lyon Playfair was not in the House at the times referred to, and I characterized that statement as an infamy. And I challenge any proof on the part of the authors of those reports to show cause why they should not be censured by this House for falsely and feloniously misleading a high official of the House. ["Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERIf I understand the argument of the hon. Member correctly, it is to this effect—that while in the Committee he used the words infamy as applied to the Chair, he now proposes to strengthen that argument by the assertion that his conduct was false and felonious. I am bound to ask for an explanation from the hon. Member. If I take a correct view of what he said I shall call upon him for an apology to this House.
§ MR. O'DONNELLSir, you have entirely understood my argument as the very thing that it was not. I am asserting now, and I meant to convey then, that false reports had been submitted to the Chairman of Committees, and that those false reports misled the Chairman of Committees. [Cries of "By whom?"] Most probably by Her Majesty's Government. [Cries of "Order!" and "Name!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe indulgence which has been given by the House to the hon. Member has been very great, and I feel bound to say now that that indulgence cannot any longer be extended, and I shall call upon him to keep close to the Question before this House, which is his own conduct, and not the conduct of the Chairman.
§ MR. O'DONNELLI have just stated that my whole conduct consisted in characterizing as an infamy the false reports 1287 submitted to the Chairman. Sir, I studiously decline to characterize the share in the proceedings taken by the Chairman of Committees when I made that statement, which was addressed—and which was only part of the statement which was addressed—personally and directly to the Chairman of Committees—namely, "You sin against all the traditions of your Office." With regard to my assertion, to my statement, to my solemn declaration—for I wish it to be understood that I made it in all solemness and earnestness—that that statement which had been read to the House was an infamy, I meant and mean to include within that solemn declaration the cowardly inciters to the force and tyranny which were practised against the Irish Members last Saturday, and I name Her Majesty's Government as the guilty authors.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe conduct of the hon. Member is now under the consideration of the House, and, according to the usual practice, the hon. Member for Dungarvan will withdraw.
§ Mr. O'DONNELL thereupon withdrew from the House.
§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIRSir, I do not intend to take any part in the debate before the House. I simply wish to give it what I hope will be an impartial narrative of what took place with a view of guiding the decision of the House; but I think I may be permitted, in the first place, to answer the statement which has been made by the hon. Member for Dungarvan with regard to the false reports which are said to have been given to me by the Government. I may state that the whole responsibility for the action taken on Saturday last rests with me alone. No one single Member of the Government knew the action I was about to take. I did not mention it to a single Member of the Government, or to a single Member of the Opposition; and whatever responsibility attaches to that action is due to me alone. There were no reports of any kind made to me. I judged by the evidence before me, and acted upon it. I wish simply to give a narrative of the facts. There had been protracted discussions on the 17th clause. Of those protracted discussions I took a view quite different from that which existed in the mind of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. I wish to state this 1288 difference, because I think it constitutes a large instigation of what he has said. To my mind, these protracted discussions gave the evidence that what I considered Obstruction was increasing, while the hon. Member for Dungarvan believed that my Naming him was on account of protracted discussions on that clause; and he, feeling that he had not taken an active part in them, thought the action of the Chairman in Naming him was unjust. Well, I felt at the time that he used those words that I was sorry to be obliged to consider it my duty to report the direct attack which he made upon the Chair, because I was quite convinced he used those words in great heat and while labouring under a sense of injustice, and under a misapprehension of the action I had taken. I can assure the House, to which is left the decision of this case, that it was with great pain that I felt I was obliged to report them to the House, and that no effects remain in my mind except the regretable incident that had occurred, and that it was a necessity of my Office to make a report to the House of the transaction which had occurred.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he rose to submit an Amendment to the House. He did not think that anyone could complain of the tone which had been adopted in this matter by the Prime Minister, who had expressed his regret at having to make this Motion, and only made it because, as he said, the hon. Member for Dungarvan preferred to explain his conduct after rather than before the Motion was made. He thought that, after the explanation of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, the House ought, to a certain extent, to modify the conclusion at which it had previously arrived with reference to the conduct of that hon. Member. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He respectfully asked hon. Gentlemen to preserve a judicial composure. For his own part, he should not have used the word "infamy;" but hon. Members must always remember that that House was composed of English and Irish Members—[Cries of "And Scotch Members."]—yes, of course, and Scotch Members. The Scotch were even more cautious than the English in the use of words, and Irish Members were not always so cautious as the English. When, therefore, Irish Members used words, they did not always 1289 use them in the sense in which the English and Scotch might apply them. They must always take the most moderate view that could apply in judging of their language; and upon consulting Webster's Dictionary, which was, he believed, a very high authority on the English language, he found that "infamy" was defined as "something held in abhorrence." Doubtless the hon. Member for Dungarvan had held in abhorrence the conduct of Her Majesty's Government on Saturday last, and had used the word "infamy" in reference to their action; but that was a very different thing from deliberately insulting the Chair. [Cries of "Oh!" and "Divide!"] He would point out another reason why they should look fairly—[Cries of "Oh!" and "Order!"] If hon. Members chose to interrupt him in that way he could waste an hour, and he told them that he meant to speak. He confessed that he entirely agreed with the Prime Minister that the word "infamy" was unsuited to debates in that House; but a precedent had been set for the use of the word by a most respected Member of the Conservative Party (Mr. A. J. Balfour), who, a few days ago, had characterized the transaction known as the "Kilmainham Treaty" as being unexampled in its infamy. He would only point out to the House that the hon. Member for Dungarvan, under what the Chairman of Committees had very honourably to himself admitted was great provocation, used words which were used by an English Member a few days ago towards those Gentlemen whom on this side of the House they must respect without his being called to Order by the Chair, or without a protest from any Member. In these circumstances, it seemed to him they ought to temper justice with mercy; and that it would be desirable, instead of taking the words of the Resolution of the Prime Minister, to leave out all the words after "that," and substitute these words—
The Chairman of Committees having Named Mr. O'Donnell for obstructing the Business of Parliament, he being absent from the House during the greater part of the Sitting during which the alleged offence was committed, and not having previously received any warning from the Chair, this House is not prepared to take notice of the language imputed to the hon. Member, and passes to the next Order of the Day.
§ MR. CALLANseconded the Motion.
MR. GLADSTONEI am not sure that I am in Order in asking permission to refer to the terms of the hon. Member's Amendment before it is put from the Chair, but the question I wish to put upon it is—[Loud cries of "Order!" amid which the right hon. Gentleman resumed his seat.]
§ MR. SPEAKERIf, as I understand, the right hon. Gentleman is rising to a point of Order, he is entitled to put a question to the Chair.
MR. GLADSTONEI do rise to a point of Order. The question that I wish to put to you, Sir, is whether this Amendment does not introduce, as part of a subject-matter for the consideration of the House on this occasion, the conduct of the Chairman of Committees, and if it does, then whether the Amendment is within the scope of the debate?
§ MR. SPEAKERThis Amendment does by implication, if not directly, call in question the conduct of the Chairman of Committees, and in that sense, no doubt, it is out of Order. It is out of Order—first, because it is scarcely relevant to the Question before the House; and, beyond that, it is out of Order because it raises substantially the same questions that are proposed to be raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen) and, I think, the right hon. and gallant Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Sir John Hay). I could not, therefore, put this Amendment as it is now framed.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREI am quite ready to leave out any portion of it that may be ruled out of Order.
MR. GORSTsaid, that he should not proceed with the Motion relative to this matter which stood upon the Paper in his name, but desired to give Notice that on a future day he should move a Resolution to the effect—
That this House is of opinion that in any case of Obstruction, it is the duty of Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of Ways and Means, to Name every Member separately at the time that it takes place, and that the conduct of the Chairman of Committees in Naming collectively a number of Members, some of whom were absent, without notice, and without specification of the offence of each Member, is not warranted by the Standing Order of February 22, 1880, is subversive of freedom of debate, and deserves the censure of this House.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTESir, the House is, I think, placed not only in a painful, but in a somewhat em- 1291 barrassiug situation by what has occurred in this case. In the first place, it is placed at a great disadvantage in consequence of the ordinary course not having been pursued on this occasion. According to ordinary precedent, the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), having been notified that his conduct on Saturday last would be brought under the consideration of the House, and having received from the Notice placed upon the Table the fullest information as to the nature of the charge made against him, should have made such a statement, or given such an explanation, or made such an apology as he might have thought right before the House proceeded to consider his case, which it would then have been able to do with the advantage of knowing what the hon. Member had to say upon the subject. I greatly regret that the hon. Member for Dungarvan has not thought it right to take that course on the present occasion. The matter has, however, been so far met by the Prime Minister, who, rising and speaking on behalf of the House generally, clearly and distinctly explained to the hon. Member what the charge against him was, at the same time stating what his views on the subject of that charge were. That charge having been in no way met or answered by the hon. Member for Dungarvan, the Prime Minister considered it to be his duty to submit to the House a Motion of Censure upon the hon. Member. That Motion having been made before the explanation of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, we have now to consider what that statement of the hon. Member amounts to. As far as I can understand it, the hon. Member has given us some explanation of the circumstances under which he used the words attributed to him; but he has not in any way withdrawn those words or apologized for them. To a certain extent, he has endeavoured to alter the charge against him—that is to say, he states that he used the words in question in reference, not to the conduct of the Chairman of Committees, but of someone else, by whom he said the Chairman of Committees had been misled. The hon. Member, therefore, contends that he meant to offer no insult to the Chairman of Committees. Still, I must say, notwithstanding this explanation, that the language of the hon. 1292 Member, whatever may be the allowance that may be made for him in the circumstances in which the words were used, was not such as was consistent with the Rules of Parliamentary debate. It does seem to me that, having regard to the fact that we must maintain the authority of our presiding Officers in the very difficult and arduous duties they have to perform, the House ought to mark its determination to support its Officers in such circumstances as those now under the consideration of the House. The questions raised by the hon. Member opposite, and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), are questions which, no doubt, ought to be brought forward and considered, and are matters upon which we shall have to pronounce an opinion in proper time; but, looking at the circumstances of the case, the question now for consideration is the propriety or impropriety of certain words used by an hon. Member which have not been withdrawn, and for which an explanation has been offered which, to my mind, does not remove their objectionable character. These words stand before us, neither withdrawn nor apologized for, and it does seem to me that the House is left without an alternative in the matter.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREI presume, Sir, that my Amendment will be considered in Order if I take out, as I have done, the words which you hold to be objectionable?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is bound to confine himself to the Question now before the House.
MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he wished to submit an Amendment to the Resolution of the Prime Minister, the object of which was to delay taking action in the matter. He did this because the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton could not be put. He did not ask the House to pronounce any opinion on the language of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). They could not fairly do it, as they had not before them the circumstances under which the words were used, and the Speaker would not allow them to refer to proceedings that had taken place in Committee, and had prompted the expressions complained of. For his own part, he never joined in any course of procedure that would 1293 conflict with the Rules of the House, or even strain them. He thought if a man became a Member of an Assembly he was bound to comply with the conditions of membership. It was folly for him to kick against their Regulations. If he could not comply with them, he had no right to enter. He had always, therefore, while he had been in that Chamber, refused to take part in any doings calculated to bring its proceedings into disrepute. He did not believe either that strong language was necessary to enforce strong opinions. It was possible for a man to entertain the most advanced views, and to put them before opponents in words that need offend no one. Invective need not be vulgar. He said this, not because he was passing censure upon the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan, but to guard himself against any supposed or implied sympathy with personalities or offensiveness in discussion. But, having said it, he wished to add that language quite as strong as ever was used by the hon. Member for Dungarvan had been used in that House and passed unnoticed. There was a memorable occasion when the Prime Minister of the day had been accused of forming an "infamous coalition." Mr. Martin, a Member of some importance in his time, called Mr. Wilkes a "cowardly scoundrel," and was not reproved for it. Mr. Duncombe described the conduct of Mr. Gouldburn towards the late Lord Durham as "base and cowardly," and he was upheld in the use of these words by the House. Many other instances might be cited; and, therefore, it was incorrect to say that language quite as strong as that attributed to the hon. Member for Dungarvan had not been used on other occasions under excitement and pressure, and had gone unchallenged. [Cries of" Divide!"]
§ MR. HEALYbegged to draw the attention of the Speaker to the conduct of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James). He asked if it was in Order for the hon. Member to act as the leader of a number of other hon. Gentlemen in creating a disturbance while the hon. Member for Newcastle was speaking?
MR. JOSEPH COWEN, continuing, said, the subject had been so hedged round with restrictions by the Speaker 1294 that it was impossible to discuss it adequately. The House could only fairly consider the force of the observations of the hon. Member for Dungarvan when they were able to debate all the circumstances that led up to it, and the action of the Chairman which called forth the offending expression. As they could not do this, any lengthened debate would not only be useless, but impossible. The object of his Amendment was practically to adjourn the consideration of the question until such time as the conduct of the Chairman of Committees could be brought under review. He had given Notice of a Motion to effect this, and he invited the House to withhold their condemnation of the hon. Member for Dungarvan until that more ample debate took place. He, therefore, begged to move as an Amendment—
That this House is not prepared to take notice of the language imputed to Mr. O'Donnell, and passes to the next Order of the Day.
§
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House is not prepared to take notice of the language imputed to Mr. O'Donnell, and passes to the next Order of the Day."—(Mr. Joseph Cowen.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ MR. PARNELLI had intended, Sir, to have moved an Amendment of almost the same character as that which the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen) has just moved. It runs in these words—
That this House declines to express an opinion with regard to the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell until it has been afforded an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon the Notice of Motion relating to the suspension of Members standing in the name of Mr. Cowen.Now, Sir, I submit for the consideration of the House that we approach this question under circumstances of very great difficulty. Owing to the ruling which you, Sir, have felt it necessary to give, we are not entitled to discuss the antecedent conduct of the Chairman of Committees in reference to the question of the suspension of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. I cannot help saying that it is necessary for us to 1295 look at this transaction as a whole, and to consider the action of the Chairman of Committees on Saturday morning under circumstances which are well known to the House. But I cannot see how we can possibly discuss the question of the suspension of my hon. Friend unless we are allowed to discuss the whole question. The Motion made with regard to the words alleged to have been used by my hon. Friend is undoubtedly one of great importance; but so, also, is the Motion which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle. If the hon. Member for Dungarvan used the objectionable words, it is quite right that they should be brought under the notice of the House; but the hon. Gentleman has practically raised a two-fold defence. He denies that he used the words complained of in reference to the Chairman of Committees, and he justifies the use of these words, not against the Chairman of Committees, but against Her Majesty's Government, by reason of the events which followed. It is, therefore, impossible for us to discuss this matter satisfactorily or fully unless we are allowed to take the question as a whole, and to inquire into the very grave action of the Chairman of Committees on Saturday morning last. It is all very well to talk of the action taken against a section of Irish Members. You must recollect that the day may come when the Oppositions in this House—when even Her Majesty's Opposition—may be as few in number as the Irish Members are now, and when you may regret that you have lightly sanctioned proceedings against Irish Members, and created precedents which will undoubtedly be used against English Members afterwards. I can call to mind many reforms which have been obtained in the history of England and in the House by the stubborn action of minorities as small as, and even smaller than, the minority which was suspended on Saturday morning last. Without discussing the question whether the Chairman of Committees was justified or not, but merely observing that a Motion stands on the Order Book of the House impugning his action, I maintain that the suspension of 25 Members was a very much graver occurrence than the words attributed to the hon. Member for Dungarvan. The deprivation of the 1296 Constitutional rights of 25 constituencies by the action and at the will of an Official of the House in a manner unprecedented in the history of Parliament—["Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is aware that I have already ruled that the conduct of the Chairman cannot be discussed upon the Motion now before the House, and I am sorry to observe that he has not attended to my ruling.
§ MR. PARNELLI do not wish to discuss the conduct of the Chairman; but I think that before we finally discuss the Motion with regard to the conduct of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, we ought to have a discussion of the Motion of which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle has given Notice. I do not wish in the slightest degree to say whether the conduct of the Chairman of Committees was right or wrong; but I wish to impress upon the House the difficulty of discussing the question now before us until we have had an opportunity of discussing the Motion of the hon. Member for Newcastle. Before the House is invited to come to a conclusion on the conduct of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, we should have before us the whole question of Saturday morning's suspension, although now I do not wish to impugn the conduct of the Chairman on the present occasion. I respectfully submit, however, that I am entitled to point out that the action of last Saturday morning was of a very grave character. ["Oh!"] Yes; I say it was an occurrence the gravity of which cannot be over-estimated; and we ought to have a speedy and early opportunity of discussing the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle. I wish to ask if the Government does not think that that Motion, and several other Motions of a similar nature now standing upon the Notice Paper, should not be discussed before we are asked to give our decision on the conduct of the hon. Member for Dungarvan?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member for the City of Cork is not confining himself to the Question before the House, but is anticipating discussions that may arise on other Motions, and he is not entitled, as he knows perfectly well, to do so.
§ MR. PARNELLWhat I wish to explain to the House is, that I think we 1297 ought to have an opportunity of discussing the Motion of the hon. Member for Newcastle before we finally dispose of the Motion before the House. I am not expressing any opinion as to whether that Motion is right or wrong; I am simply saying that it involves questions of a very grave character which we ought to have an opportunity of discussing before we proceed with the discussion of the Question immediately before the House. I do not see how it is possible to arrive at a just conclusion upon the Motion of the Prime Minister unless we can discuss that question as a whole. You, Sir, have ruled that it cannot be discussed as a whole. I therefore ask the Prime Minister whether he does or does not think it desirable that a Motion of the character of that of the hon. Member for Newcastle should remain upon the Paper sine die without some full, fair, and free opportunity of discussing it? That is simply my position; and it is one which will recommend itself to the judgment of many Members of the House. With reference to the original question contained in the Motion of the Prime Minister, I wish to point out that since my hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan has been directed to leave the House, the Chairman of Committees has made a statement of an important character, which my hon. Friend has not been able to hear. That statement was to the effect that the hon. Member for Dungarvan was mistaken in imputing to the Government certain reports upon which he had acted, and that he had acted entirely on his own responsibility. It is just possible that if my hon. Friend had had the opportunity of hearing that statement he might have been able to make such an announcement to the House as would have altered the view it takes of his conduct; but, not having heard the explanation of the Chairman, the Motion has been made that my hon. Friend be suspended for 14 days, thus depriving his constituents of his services for that period at a most critical period in the history of Ireland; and I shall hope that the Government will allow the matter to stand over until we have had the opportunity which we desire of discussing the general question, because without such an opportunity I feel that we could not fairly deal with the Motion before the House. Therefore, for this 1298 reason, I shall support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle, because it will give an opportunity of discussing the question as a whole, and enable me and my hon. Friends to take such a course as we think right. Unless the question be discussed as a whole, no decision of this House on the conduct of the hon. Member can be regarded as satisfactory.
§ SIR JOHN HAYI shall not detain the House, Sir, for more than two minutes. Many hon. Members who are now in the House were not present when the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) used the words imputed to him. I was present, Sir, 14½ hours, and saw and heard all that took place. I proceeded, soon after the 16 Members were Named to the Committee, to remonstrate with the Chairman for having included in the list of Members suspended the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum), for instance, who had only said a word or two during the whole night's Sitting. While the Chairman was reading over certain names previous to the division, the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), in an unintentional manner, uttered the words, "It is an infamy." I did not consider that the words were addressed to the Chairman at all. If I had thought he had used the words with reference to the conduct of the Chairman, I should certainly vote for the Motion now before us; but having been present, and having heard what took place, and for other reasons, which I am not allowed to allude to now, I shall support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle.
§ DR. COMMINSsaid, he felt that he was in a somewhat similar position to the hon. Member for Dungarvan, having been, in his opinion, suspended without having in any sense resorted to Obstruction. He quite agreed with the statement just made by the right hon. and gallant Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay), who said the words used by the hon. Member for Dungarvan were not applied to the Chair at all. The face of the hon. Member was turned entirely away from the Chairman, and the remark that escaped him was made more in communing with himself than to anyone near him. He would, therefore, support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle, because that 1299 should be first discussed before they should be asked to give their decision with reference to the conduct of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. The sentence proposed was a severe one, and in order to avert it he should support the Amendment.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he trusted that the House would listen to a few words from some of the Members on the Home Rule Benches with reference to the Motion that had been made as to the conduct of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. That House was not fit to judge of the conduct of any man if it lost its patience. As a rule, the House was anxiously indulgent to any of its Members whose conduct had been impugned by the Government, and which, if proved, involved penal action. He hoped the House would not lose its character in that regard. They had just heard the Report of the Chairman of Committees. The entry on the Minutes made by the Clerk was to the effect—
Mr. Playfair reported to the Speaker that Mr. O'Donnell, sitting in his place, insulted the Chair by saying that the action taken by him was an infamy.His hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan had been asked to offer an explanation of his conduct to the Chair. His hon. Friend had explained. He had repudiated the words imputed to him, and no confirmation had been brought forward of those words having been used. He had heard the actual words of the hon. Member, and he could say they were not the words ascribed to him. A Predecessor of the Speaker in the year 1870—Sir Frederick Norton—in that year used certain expressions derogatory of the character of an hon. Member, and Mr. Cornwall desired the words to be taken down. There was a general conversation at the time, and as there was a dispute about the words, Lord North said the words should be erased. The expressions complained of were—When I expected candid treatment from that Gentleman I was mistaken, but I do not now expect candour from that Gentleman.What did the Speaker do on that occasion? The Speaker rose and said, as the words had been reported to be erroneously entered he allowed an alteration. There had been a dispute about the words used in this case. It was denied that the hon. Member for 1300 Dungarvan had used the words in the sense stated, and therefore the record should be corrected. The hon. Member did not say that the action taken by the Chair was an infamy. What he said was that the report made was an infamy. They had now heard for the first time that the names of the Members to be suspended had been handed by the Chairman to the Secretary of State for War, and that was the same paper which the Chairman had originally in his hand. The Home Rule Members had seen the paper passed to the Secretary for War, and they saw it brought into the House and given to the Chairman of Committees before it was used. Under the circumstances, the hon. Member for Dungarvan said he had been unjustly suspended. He was precluded from doing justice to the merits of the case by the Rules of the House; but he thought they were perfectly entitled to say, under the circumstances, that they should not pursue the discussion any further, inasmuch as the hon. Member for Dungarvan had not had a fair opportunity of vindicating his conduct. He would only add that whatever vote the House might give he, for one, would not consider that it put any slur on the hon. Member for Dungarvan.
§ MR. HEALYasked whether he should be in Order in moving to amend the Amendment by omitting all the words after the word "O'Donnell," and inserting—
Until there has been an opportunity afforded to the House to express its opinion on the Notice of Motion relating to the suspension of Members, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member would not be in Order in moving an Amendment to an Amendment. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle became the Main Question, then it would become open for him to do so.
§ MR. HEALYwished to know whether, in the event of the Prime Minister's Motion being carried, the suspension would come within the terms of the Standing Order of February, 1880, which provided that if a Member was suspended a third time, he should be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of the Session? He presumed he would have an answer to that question from some Member of the Government. With regard to whe- 1301 ther the hon. Member for Dungarvan was justified or not in applying the term "infamy" to the action of the Chairman, he thought if the hon. Member for Dungarvan expressed that opinion he had good grounds for it. He presumed from the course taken by the Prime Minister that he thought the crime of saying that the Chairman of Committees was guilty of an infamy was adequately met by suspension for 14 days. He thought, however, it might be argued that if his hon. Friend was not justified in using the word "infamy," the punishment proposed by the Prime Minister might be deemed inadequate. Was it in accordance with the dignity of the House that there should be a graduated scale of rewards and punishments for actions done inside the House? One hon. Member got 14 days for saying that the action of the Chairman was infamous, while another obtained a Baronetcy for supporting Her Majesty's Government. He protested against this system. If the offence of his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan was a grave one, he did not consider that 14 days' suspension was an adequate punishment for it. [Sir FREDERICK MILBANK: Move six months.] That suggestion proceeded from an hon. Member who had received a Baronetcy for supporting the Government. The remark did not befit an hon. Member who had been rewarded with a Baronetcy for his sustained support of the Government. If the House rose to the height of this great occasion, it would expel the hon. Member for Dungarvan, an expulsion his hon. Friend would consider equally an honour to the House and to himself.
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he was afraid that the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), however well - intentioned it might be, might lead the House to believe that his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan admitted using the words attributed to him. The hon. Member had stated distinctly that he applied them to the conduct of the Government, and not to the Chairman of Committees. The question was whether the application of such a term to the conduct of the Government called for the censure of the House. He believed that the word infamy had been often applied to the conduct of Governments, and had not been ruled out of Order.
§ MR. WILLISsaid, he would not have risen to address the House had it not been for the statement of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy). He was sitting just below the hon. Member for Dungarvan when the hon. Member used the words, which he addressed distinctly to the Chairman. The words were—"It is an infamy. You have sinned (or are sinning) against all the traditions of your Office." Take the words "It is an infamy," together with the context, and it was certain that the words were addressed to the Chairman, and not to the Government.
§ MR. CALLANwould not have addressed the House but for the statement of the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down. The hon. and learned Member was very excited at the time, and wished to apply Cromwellian action to the Irish Members. The words of the Chairman in announcing the suspensions—["Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThis question cannot now be discussed. I am surprised at the hon. Member taking the course after what I have stated.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he had taken the words down at the moment—the words used by the hon. Member for Dungarvan, and they were these—
It is an infamy; I have been absent all night, and now I find I am foully Named as being guilty of Obstruction. You sin against all the traditions of your Office.
§ Question put,
§ The House divided:—Ayes 199; Noes 35: Majority 164.—(Div. List, No. 231.)
§ MR. SEXTONrose to Order, and asked whether the present suspension of the hon. Member for Dungarvan would be considered as a suspension under the Standing Order of February, 1880, so that if he was suspended for a second time it would be for a week, and if for a third time for the remainder of the Session?
§ MR. SPEAKERI have no hesitation in answering the hon. Member's question. The Motion before the House is not made under the Standing Order to which he refers, and therefore it would not apply, and would not be operative under the Standing Order.
§ Main Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 181; Noes 33: Majority 148.—(Div. List, No. 232.)
1303§ Resolved, That Mr. O'Donnell be suspended from the service of the House for the term of fourteen days.