§ MR. CALLANI beg to ask the Chairman of Committees of Ways and Means, Whether the statements contained in the semi-editorial paragraphs in The Observer and in The Standard of this morning, to the effect that his action in suspending 16 Members on Saturday morning was based on their course of proceedings during the debates on the Prevention of Crime Bill, extending over a period of 19 days—I have to ask whether that information was supplied on his authority or at his suggestion; and, if so, whether the statement in question is a correct version of the grounds upon which he named the 16 Members on the morning of Saturday last?
§ MR. LABOUCHEREI wish, with your permission, Sir, to ask you a Question arising out of the following passage from the semi-official work of Sir Erskine May on Parliamentary Practice, at page 380 of the seventh edition:—
In the Commons the Chair (at the Table) is generally taken by the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means. If a difference should arise in the Committee concerning the election of a Chairman, it must be determined by the House itself, and not by the Committee. The Speaker resumes the Chair at once, and a 1263 Motion being made 'that A. B. do take the Chair of the Committee;' the Speaker puts the Question, which being agreed to, the Mace is again removed from the Table, and the Committee proceeds to business under the Chairman appointed by the House. On the 2nd of February, 1810, the Speaker having left the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. W. Smith, addressing himself to Mr. Ley, the Clerk, begged to say a few words to the House. The Speaker interposed and explained that if any difference of opinion arose on the subject of who should be called to the Chair, it could not be discussed in the incomplete state in which the House then was. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then called upon Mr. Lushington to take the Chair, and Mr. W. Smith upon Mr. Davies Giddy; whereupon the Speaker immediately returned to the Chair and said that now was the time to propose who should be Chairman of the Committee.I have to ask you, Sir, in view of this precedent, whether it will be open to me, when the Motion is made for you, Sir, to leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee on the Prevention of Crime Bill, to move "That Mr. Courtney do take the Chair?"
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFBefore you, Sir, answer that Question I wish to ask you another. It is whether the Chairman of Committees is entitled, while the Chair is being temporarily occupied by another Member of this House—being a subordinate Member of the Government—to vote on the Bill in the very Committee of which he is Chairman? I wish, Sir, to point out that on Saturday, in a Division on an Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman voted for the Government, and his name is in the Division List—"The Right Hon. Lyon Playfair." The two Tellers against his view of the Question were Mr. Arthur O'Connor and Mr. O'Sullivan, who on his return to the House were almost immediately afterwards suspended by him. I think it right, Sir, to say that I have received from the right hon. Gentleman a letter in which he states that he has not the slightest recollection of having voted. ["Oh, oh!"] I accept that as an understanding that he will not do it again. ["Oh!" and laughter.] I hope the supporters of the Government will not render it necessary for me to take a step which I am perfectly ready to take. [Ironical cheers.] I see that the Home Secretary is cheering in his usual offensive manner. ["Order!"]
§ SIR JOHN E. MOWBRAYI rise to Order, Sir. My hon. Friend rose to put a Question, but instead of doing so he is 1264 raising a debate on what took place on Saturday, reading a letter which he has received from the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, and then making observations on the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFI am not raising a debate at all, Sir. My right hon. Friend is mistaken. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the Chairman of Ways and Means, while being Chairman of a Committee of the Whole House on a Bill before the House, being temporarily absent from the Chair, and replaced by a Member of the Government, is entitled to vote in a Division, and if there is any precedent for it?
§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIRBefore you give an answer to that Question, Sir, will you permit me to ask the hon. Member, in order that all the facts of the case may be laid before you, to read the whole of the letter of which he has only read a paragraph?
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFThe letter is as follows:—
I understand that you intend to ask a Question about my voting in Committee while Mr. Courtney was in the Chair. I was very careful to go into the Room behind the Chair on several occasions so as not to vote. I have not the slightest recollection of having done so, though I see my name marked in the Division List.I think it is right to add that I myself saw the right hon. Gentleman in the Lobby.
§ MR. SPEAKERIn answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Northampton, I have to say that he has put to me a Question upon a point of Order not now arising, and it is not my duty to answer any Questions but those which arise immediately out of the Business of the House. Under the circumstances, however, it may be convenient to the House that I should state that the Chairman of a Committee of the Whole House, according to the practice—the immemorial practice of the House—may invite another Member to take the Chair, who proceeds to exercise the authority of the Chairman. That course is frequently taken, and has received the approval and sanction of the House. The hon. Member asks me a further Question—Whether, on the Motion that I do leave the Chair, to go into Committee on the Bill, he would be entitled to move that some Member of the House, other 1265 than the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, do take the Chair. I think that he would not be entitled to make that Motion. With respect to the Question of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, I am not aware that the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means has ever voted in the Committee; but, at the same time, I am not prepared to say he is not entitled to vote. The House is aware that the Speaker himself is entitled to vote.
§ MR. ONSLOWYou will recollect, Sir, that when you put the Motion to the House the other day that certain Gentlemen should be suspended it was impossible for any Member to raise a point of Order. I wish to ask whether it is competent for the Chairman of Ways and Means to suspend any hon. Member of this House for retrospective action, which he considers has been of an obstructive nature; and also whether the time to take cognizance of the misconduct of a Member should not be at the time when he has committed—or is considered to have committed—a breach against the Rules and Orders of this House.
§ MR. SPEAKERI have a copy of the Standing Order before me, under which I understand the Chairman acted at the last Sitting of the House. I see no limitation in that Standing Order on the discretion of the Chairman. Some light is thrown on this matter by what took place in this House last Session. If the House will allow me, I will cite an opinion of my own given under somewhat similar circumstances last Session. The right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) appealed to me on the 31st of January, 1881, pointing out in the earlier part of his observations that numerous Motions of a dilatory character had been made, and concluded with these words—
I put it to you, Sir, whether all these speeches, if they be taken, not one by one, but in combination, do not show that there is a decided combination for the purpose of wilful and persistent Obstruction? ['No.no!'] I would ask further, whether, under this Order of the House, you have not the power of putting a stop to these proceedings? I would venture also to suggest that under your inherent power as Speaker you have the absolute power of dealing with the matter. …. I now beg to ask you, Sir, whether, by your inherent authority as Speaker of this House, you have not power to put a stop to these proceedings; and also, 1266 whether you have not, under this particular Order, the power of saying, taking in combination the speeches of hon. Members and the whole course of the debate, that this mode of carrying on the debate is not, in the terms of the Rule, persistent and wilful Obstruction of the Business of the House?My reply was as follows:—The principal question which the right hon. Gentleman has put to me I understand to be this—What is wilful and persistent Obstruction of the Business of the House, so as to bring a Member wilfully and persistently obstructing within the operation of the Standing Order to which reference has been made? Now, I will say this. I can well understand that although Members speaking to the Question before the House may speak altogether in Order with respect to that Question, still, I can well understand that Members may enter into a combination to effect a purpose which would bring them within the operation of this Order; and if I found that there was a distinct and clear combination on the part of Members of this House wilfully and persistently to obstruct the Business of the House by combination, I should consider that this Standing Order would apply. I am bound to say that the course of this debate has brought before me evidence of that combination, in so far as to bring Members wilfully obstructing within the operation of the Standing Order."—[3 Hansard, cclvii. 1943–4.]Those were the words which I addressed to the House last year, and it appears to me that they have a clear bearing upon the question now before it.
§ MR. ONSLOWWith the permission of the House, I desire to explain that, in putting the Question I have done, I merely desired to obtain the ruling of the Speaker on the point, and that I did not wish for one moment to impugn the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means.
§ MR. HEALYI wish to ask you, Sir, with reference to the ruling which you have just read from the Chair, as to what took place last year when you acted upon the declaration which you then made, whether it is not the fact that there was not a single Member suspended last year under the circumstances of the ruling which you then gave? I wish to ask whether the suspensions which took place last year were not made because certain hon. Members refused to leave the House and go into the Division Lobby; whether it is not the fact that no suspension took place last year for Obstruction, and whether there was any precedent whatever for the Chairman's action, inasmuch as there never has been a suspension in this House before for Obstruction?
§ MR. SPEAKERIn answer to the hon. Member for Wexford, I have to point out that on the occasion to which I have now made reference I did consider myself at liberty to Name to the House the considerable number of Members who, in my opinion, had obstructed the Business of the House wilfully and persistently; but, acting on my own discretion, I did not take that course.
§ MR. DILLONI desire to ask you a Question, Sir, on a matter of Privilege. I desire, first, to inform you that on Saturday last, on coming down to take my seat in this House, I was stopped by the doorkeeper, and told that I could not enter. I wish now to ask, having taken this, the very earliest opportunity possible to me, as I have been up to this excluded from the House, whether I am not entitled to bring this conduct of the doorkeeper under your notice as a matter of Privilege?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe doorkeeper acted under the authority of the Serjeant-at-Arms, and he was strictly within his right. There can be no question as to the proper conduct of the officer of the House. The House had ordered a certain number of Members to be suspended by name, and it was the clear duty of the Serjeant-at-Arms to take care that those Members did not return to the House.
§ MR. CALLANSir, as I now see the Chairman of Committees in his place, I beg to ask him whether the information contained in semi-editorial paragraphs in The Observer of yesterday and The Standard this morning, to the effect that his action in suspending 16 Irish Members on Saturday morning was on account of their conduct during 19 days of the Committee—I have to ask whether that information was supplied by his authority or at his suggestion; and, if so, whether the statement in question is a correct version of the grounds on which he Named the 16 Members on the morning of Saturday last?
§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIRI may say that to neither paper mentioned, nor to any of the reporters, as far as I know, did I communicate the slightest information.
MR. JOSEPH COWENSir, there are some portions of the record in the Votes and Proceedings issued to Members this morning the correctness of which I contest. I wish to know whether now would 1268 be the time to dispute their correctness?
§ MR. SPEAKERIf the hon. Member desires to make a Motion on the matter he can do so in the ordinary way by calling attention to the Votes and Proceedings, but he cannot do so without Notice.
MR. JOSEPH COWENCan I not contest the correctness of the statement in the Votes and Proceedings at this time, or are we to assume that the correctness is admitted?
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORWould it not be competent for the hon. Member to move that a certain portion should be struck out by the Clerk at the Table?
§ MR. SPEAKERI have stated that the proper course for the hon. Member to take is to give Notice of Motion in the ordinary way.
§ MR. CALLANSir, perhaps it may be within your memory, in the month of July or early in August, 1879, I, finding that the Votes and the Division List were incorrect with reference to the then Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, by your direction drew the attention of the House to the matter, and that immediately on the very next morning, by your direction, the Votes were cancelled and a new set issued in correct form. I wish now to ask whether it is not competent for an hon. Member to draw attention to the Votes in a similar manner? My reason for wishing to do so is this—on the morning of Saturday last, at 10 o'clock, the Chairman of Committees—["Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member, I understand, puts to me a Question arising out of a point of Order raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen). If I rightly remember, on the occasion to which the hon. Member refers, some error was pointed out in regard to the insertion of a name, and the alteration was made. But that is no precedent for treating the matter which the hon. Member for Newcastle desires to bring before the House as a question of Privilege. He can, of course, take what action he thinks proper in the matter; but what I understand him to claim is to deal with this question as a question of Privilege.
§ MR. CALLANThe question raised in July, 1879, was the omission of the names from the Division List of the hon. 1269 Baronet the then Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, and my Notice to-day is with reference to the insertion of a name in the Papers which was not read from the Table.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is now entering into a debate. He has put a Question to the Chair, and having received an answer from the Chair in reference to the point, he must be content.
MR. GORSTSir, I wish to ask, upon a question of Order, whether the object of the hon. Member for Newcastle is not to secure the correctness of the Records of the House; and whether he would not, therefore, be justified in now calling your attention and the attention of the House to any inaccuracy in the record of the proceedings?
§ MR. SPEAKERI understand that the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) desired to make a Motion on a question of Privilege which he would be out of Order in doing. If I have not correctly understood him, perhaps he will explain.
MR. JOSEPH COWENMy object, Sir, was to call attention to the record of proceedings. In a Report made by the Chairman of Committees to you, Sir, there were four hon. Members Named for wilful Obstruction in this House, although those hon. Members were away from the Committee at the time.
§ MR. SPEAKERIf the hon. Member desires to bring such a matter before the House, he must do it by way of Motion. As I understand, the hon. Member has already given Notice of such a Motion.
MR. JOSEPH COWENWill you allow me to explain, Sir? It is quite true that I have given Notice of my intention to make a Motion with regard to the case of four of the hon. Members who were suspended on Saturday; but I now desire to call attention to the cases of other hon. Members who were suspended at the same time. [Loud cries of "Oh!" and "Order!"]
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYI wish to ask you, Sir, on a point of Order, whether, when the Chairman of Committees Names to the House a certain number of Members as having been guilty of wilful Obstruction, it is competent for the Minister of the Crown who rises to move the Motion of Suspension to add to those names the name 1270 of an hon. Member not mentioned by the Chairman of Committees; and, whether, when the Chairman of Committees put the Motion to the Committee without that name added by the Minister, it is competent to submit to you, Sir, a list of names containing again the name of the hon. Member not mentioned on either occasion in the Resolution?
§ MR. CHILDERSI presume, Sir, the Minister referred to is myself, and I beg to state that I moved the suspension of those Members only who were included in the list of the Chairman of Committees. [Cries of "Oh!"]
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYPerhaps I may be allowed to explain exactly what I mean. The list of names of Members Named by the Chairman of Committee did not include my name. The right hon. Gentleman—
§ MR. CHILDERSIf am applied to—["Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERIf the name of the hon. Member for Longford was not upon the list of the Chairman of Committees, the hon. Member should not have been reported to the House as having been guilty of wilful Obstruction.
§ MR. CHILDERSIf I am applied to, I may say that I did not know before to whose name the hon. Member for Longford was referring; but I am able to state distinctly, from my recollection, that the name of the hon. Member was included in the Chairman's list. The paper from which I read was handed to me by the Chairman of Committees. [Cries of "Oh!" and "Personal malice!"]
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYMay I be allowed to explain? The Chairman of the Committee did not Name me in the list of Members, neither in the first list nor in the second. Afterwards I went round to the Chairman of Committees and asked him if my name was on the list, and he said it was not.
§ Mr. JOSEPH COWEN and Mr. MAGNIAC here rose amid loud cries of "Order!" and shouts from the Home Rule Benches.
§ MR. SPEAKERIf interruption of that kind continues from the quarter of the House from which it proceeds, I shall feel it my duty to take notice of it.
§ MR. MAGNIACI rise to Order, Sir. I wish to ask you whether the hon. Mem- 1271 ber for Wexford is in Order in imputing "personal malice" to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War?
§ MR. HEALYMay I be allowed to ask the hon. Gentleman how he knows to whom I addressed those words? [Cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Order!"]
MR. JOSEPH COWENAs the name of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) appears not to have been in the list which was read by the Chairman of Committees, I beg to move that the name of the hon. Member be erased from the record of the House's proceedings.
§ MR. CALLANI rise to second the Motion. ["Order!"]
§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIRSir, the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) came to me and asked whether his name was included in the list read by the Secretary of State for War from the Table. In looking over the list, I certainly did not see it at first, but afterwards I pointed out to the hon. Member that his name appeared in another line, and that it had been read by the Secretary of State for War.
§ MR. CALLANOn the Motion of the hon. Member for Newcastle I wish to state that I was present on the occasion, and heard the names read.
§ MR. SPEAKERThere is no Question before the House. Is the hon. Member asking a Question on a point of Order?
§ MR. CALLANNo, Sir.
§ MR. SPEAKERThen the hon. Member must resume his seat.
§ SIR JOHN HAYI hope, Sir, I may be permitted to put a Question to the Chairman of Committees. I wish to ask him whether it is still his opinion that the name of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum) was inserted erroneously in the list for suspension?
§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIRNo, Sir; it was certainly not inserted erroneously, from the circumstance that the hon. Member spoke a great many times, and moved a great many Amendments during the consideration of the Bill in Committee. The right hon. and gallant Member alludes to a private conversation I had with him, in which I stated my own regret that I had been obliged to insert the hon. Member's name, because I did not think the hon. Member spoke so often or was so obstructive as some of the others.
§ SIR JOHN HAYI was present in the House for 22 hours, and during that time the hon. Member for Kilkenny spoke only once. [Cries of "Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot refer to that matter now.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORI wish, Sir, to refer to the Minutes of the Votes. We have it there stated that the Chairman of Committees called the attention of the Committee to the fact that certain Members had been guilty of Obstruction, and that thereupon he Named those Members to the Committee, upon which Naming a vote of the Committee was taken, and that vote was reported to the House. The record then proceeds to state how you, Sir, put from the Chair a similar Question to that which had already been put in Committee, and the House voted upon that Question. The Votes then relate how Mr. Playfair then reported to the Speaker that the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), sitting in his place, had insulted the Chair by saying that the action taken by it was an infamy. What I wish to submit is that the Speaker of the House has only one voice, and that is the voice which the House gives to him. The Chairman of Committees similarly acts on instructions received from the Committee. I submit that, in regard to the suspension of the Members, he carried out the directions of the Committee; but when he proceeded to report to you that the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had done as he accused him of doing, then he was not acting according to the record upon any instruction or Motion of the Committee; and I wish to ask whether the Chairman was within his right in making a report as from the Committee which he had no instructions to make?
§ MR. SPEAKERI apprehend that the Chairman of Committees acted according to his duty. He considered the conduct of the hon. Member for Dungarvan irregular and disorderly; and as Chairman of Committees he was bound to report that conduct to me, so that the House might take what course it thought proper in the circumstances.
§ MR. PARNELLOn the point of Order, Sir, I wish to ask whether the proper course for the Chairman of Committees to have adopted under the circumstances mentioned would not have 1273 been to have directed the Assistant Clerk to take down the words used by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), to have brought them before the Committee, and to have obtained the directions of the Committee regarding them; and whether the Chairman of Committees, in taking upon himself to make the report to the House without having previously obtained the directions of the Committee, was not proceeding ultra vires? I wish to ask, further, whether the only power the Chairman of Committees has, with, regard to making a report to the House as to the conduct of any Member without special direction of the Committee, is when he has Named that Member to the Committee, and is empowered by the vote of the Committee to report that name to the House?
§ MR. SPEAKERNo doubt the ordinary practice is that the words objected to in debate, and considered disorderly, should be taken down. That is only when the House is in debate, or the Committee is in debate. Upon this accusation the hon. Member was not in debate. The debate had been closed, and the only course open to the Chairman was to do what he did, and report the matter to the House, so that the House might take such notice of it as it thought proper.
§ MR. PARNELLI beg to ask you, Sir, whether there is any precedent in the whole history of this House for such conduct, and whether any Chairman of Committees has ever previously reported words used by a Member during the Sitting of the Committee without having previously had the words taken down and read to the Committee, thus affording the Member in question an opportunity of withdrawing them, or of contradicting the correctness of the report?
§ MR. SPEAKERI cannot, without searching the Journals of the House, say whether there is or is not any precedent for the conduct of the Chairman on this occasion. This I will say, that there is no precedent for the proceedings which took place in this House on Saturday.
§ MR. O'DONNELLAs to the question of precedent, is it not a fact, Sir, that in. the year 1837 the Speaker of the House, complaining that the House refused to obey him, threatened to leave 1274 the Chair and his Office unless the House became more orderly?
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORI wish to submit, Sir, that as the record of the proceedings will be entered on the Journals, and remain as a precedent, it is of importance that it should be correct. There appears to be no mention on the Minutes of the fact of which you, Sir, appear to be somehow in possession—namely, that the interruption of the hon. Member for Dungarvan took place at a time when the Committee was not in debate. Should not the record be amended so as to include that fact?
§ MR. SPEAKERI have already twice said, and now say again, in answer to the hon. Member, that if any hon. Member thinks proper to challenge the entry in the Votes, it is open for him to do so. I have to say, also, as I have already said to the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen), that such proceeding would not be a question of Privilege.