PARLIAMENT—RULES OF DEBATE— UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE— MR. O'DONNELL. (Hansard, 24 July 1882)

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, he could fully understand the anxiety with which the House awaited the next exposition of the Liberal Estimates of a War Expenditure. The experience of the House went to show that Liberal Expenditure bounded up at the rate of £1,000,000 every two hours, and, therefore, the House was necessarily anxious to know what might be the wants of the Government at this hour. He was quite sure, if the full truth were known, that the typical £6,000,000 had been already exceeded. He rose for the purpose of replying to the remarks of the Prime Minister—that he could not draw any distinction in favour of the appeal of his hon. Friend the Member for the County of Waterford (Mr. Blake). He thought there was a strong reason for drawing a distinction between his appeal and that of others. The Secretary of State for India had given Notice that he would to-morrow move to burthen the revenues of the unrepresented people of India with large sums towards the expenditure of the war which now seemed the necessary consequence of the piratical bombardment of Alexandria. [Cries of "Oh!"] Surely that ought not to be done without some opportunity being given for examining into the grievances from which the people of India suffered. There was a special reason why the grievances of the people of India should not go unattended to—because it was seething with discontent at this moment. Everyone knew that in the mosques prayers were being offered up to Allah for the success of the enemies of England. During the last 10 years the Mohammedan population of India had increased from 40,000,000 to 45,000,000.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is not confining himself to the Motion before the House. I must call upon him to confine himself to the Question which is now before the House.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, he would readily accept the ruling of the Chair. He was bringing forward an argument why the House should redress the grievances of the people of India—[Cries of "Question !"]—and why they should not accede to the Prime Minister's Motion. To his mind nothing could be more appropriate to the Question. He asked that the House should take into its own hands the consideration of Indian subjects. ["Order!"] The complaint he had raised was not only made by an Irish Member, but one of the most important, most liberal, and most thoroughly English of the newspapers of India declared—[Cries of "Question!" and "Order!"]—

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is now anticipating the discussion of a Motion of which Notice has actually been given by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India. The hon. Member must confine himself strictly to the Question before the House.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, he had not the slightest intention of anticipating that discussion. He presumed that the interruptions of hon. Gentlemen had prevented the Speaker from hearing the words he used. He confessed it was singularly embarrassing to a Member of that House to find that not only what he was stating should be objected to, but what he was about to say should be predicted for him by the presiding Authority and then decided upon—[Loud cries of "Order!" "Name!"].

§ Mr. HEALY
was about to speak, when Mr. GLADSTONE rose.

§ MR. HEALY
said, he understood the Speaker had called upon him.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman rises to a point of Order.

MR. GLADSTONE
I rise to Order—to take notice of the closing words of the hon. Gentleman.

§ MR. HEALY
I rise to a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. [Cries of "Order!"]

MR. GLADSTONE
The words appear to me to be totally destructive of all authority. I move that those words be taken down. The hon. Gentleman stated that the Chair had made a prediction of the words he was about to speak, and had condemned those words. ["No, no!"] I move, Sir, that those words be taken down.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
Before you put the Question, Sir—["Order!"]—I rise to Order—

§ MR. SPEAKER
It appears to me to be the general sense of the House that the words adverted to be taken down, and I have directed the Clerk at the Table to take them down.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
I wish to know whether it is competent for the right hon. Gentleman to make that Motion after some interval of time has elapsed between the observation being made? You, Sir, after an interval of time, called upon the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), and he had already begun to address the House. [Cries of "No, no!"]

§ MR. HEALY
I wish to raise a point of Order. It has been decided in Committee that if a Member of the House—even the Prime Minister—rises to a point of Order while a Member is speaking, and after the Member to whose words the point of Order refers has concluded his speech, he cannot be heard. That has been decided by the Chairman of Committees. The Prime Minister did not rise until after the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had finished his speech—the right hon. Gentleman waited until he had consulted with the bellicose Home Secretary. [Loud cries of "Order!" and "Name!"]

§ MR. SPEAKER
I am bound to say that I did not catch the concluding words of the speech of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). When he sat down the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) rose, and then immediately the right hon. Gentleman rose. I concluded that the right hon. Gentleman desired to address the House on a point of Order; and thereupon I called upon the right hon. Gentleman. The proceedings are perfectly regular.

§ MR. BIGGAR
I beg leave, Sir, to rise to another point of Order. [Cries of "Order!"]

§ MR. SPEAKER
The words as taken down are as follows:— The Chair had made a prediction of the words he was about to speak, and then decided upon them." ["No, no!"]

MR. GLADSTONE
I wish to move, Sir—if this is the regular course—that these words be taken into consideration to-morrow.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The Question is, "That those words be taken into consideration to-morrow."

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
I wish to ask you, Sir, as a matter of Order, whether the words to be taken down are to be the exact words used by the hon. Member, and not the interpretation put upon those words by the Prime Minister or any other Member of the House? The words attributed to my hon. Friend by the Prime Minister appear to me to be a distortion of the actual words used, and to have no resemblance to the words of my hon. Friend. That being so, I ask you, Sir, to decide whether this Motion which has been made by the Prime Minister, is a Motion that can be submitted to the judgment of this House? [Cries of "Order!"] I respectfully ask you this question, Sir, whether the words which are said to have been used by an hon. Member, and which, on the Motion of the Prime Minister, were taken down, must be the exact words used by the hon. Member? If that be so, as the words quoted by the Prime Minister are not the words used by my hon. Friend, I wish to ask you whether the Motion can be put from the Chair?

§ MR. SPEAKER
It is for the House to say whether those are the exact words or not.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
I know they were not.

§ Mr. HEALY and Sir WILFRID LAWSON
rising together—

§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON
I think the House will agree with me—

§ MR. SPEAKER
I call upon the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy).

§ MR. HEALY
Sir, I observed that when the Prime Minister made his Motion there was a departure from the usual practice, which has hitherto been that the Question should be put, "That the words be taken down." The Prime Minister has simply moved that the words be taken down, and the Question was not put to the House in the usual way. This appears to me an extraordinary state of things. Does it arise out of the New Rules which we shall be discussing, I presume, at the Autumn Session? If a Motion is made that certain words be taken down, is that to be 1565 carried into effect without more ado, and without the House saying "Aye" or "Nay" on the Question being put from the Chair? Does the Prime Minister incorporate in himself the functions of the Chair? Can the Prime Minister arrogate to himself duties which do not belong to him?

§ MR. SPEAKER
I wish to put the hon. Member right on that point. When a Motion is made that words be taken down, it rests with the Chair to collect the sense of the House whether the words should be taken down. I so collected the sense of the House, and had the words taken down. This proceeding is quite according to the usual practice, and there has been no departure from the usual course.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
I rise to Order.

§ MR. HEALY
I suppose it is no departure from the usual course that a man may be allowed to continue his speech. I wish to ask you, Sir, then, by what process that collection takes place? ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to think that the presiding Officer of this House is outside the range of argument. I do not think so. I presume it is open to an hon. Member to question the Speaker and to argue with him. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite state their opinion. I state mine. When a Motion was made to take down some words of my own this week, the Question was put from the Chair, "Is it your pleasure?" and a shout of "Ayes" and "Noes" took place. Well, such an unholy din was being made in the House at the time when my hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) concluded his speech that I am utterly at a loss to know—no Question having been put, and it being possible to interpret the various noises heard by hon. Members in any way you please—in what way the sense of the House could be arrived at. Upon the Question that the words of the hon. Member for Dungarvan be considered to-morrow, I wish to know whether the Main Question before the House is not that all future Business shall be postponed till the end of August? How, then, can a Motion be interpolated that words used by an hon. Member shall be considered to-morrow? I wish to know whether any hon. Member can move that the Prime Minister's words be taken down, and then interrupt 1566 the proceedings of the House by moving that those words should be considered to-morrow? There ought to be such a thing as regularity, even in the present extraordinary proceedings. The Prime Minister has stated what the words used by my hon. Friend were—

MR. GLADSTONE
I did not state the exact words. I gave the best account of them I could.

§ MR. HEALY
The right hon. Gentleman says he gave the best account of the words he could; but I am bound to say it was a very bad account. We had the garbled account of the Prime Minister—["Order, order!" "Withdraw!"] I suppose that by-and-bye it will not be allowable to say a word about the Prime Minister. I presume he will become as sacred as Vishnu. I did not use the word "garbled" in a sinister sense; but certainly the words the right hon. Gentleman used were "garbled." Then the Clerk at the Table was directed to take down words which had not reached the Speaker's ears, and which, owing to the din which prevailed, he (the Clerk) could not have heard—

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is not entitled to make such observations, and I call upon him to withdraw those words.

§ MR. HEALY
I withdraw the expression, Sir, that the Clerk at the Table did not hear the words. I presume you must have some knowledge of the fact that he did hear the words. At all events, the words read out from the Table gave me the impression that he could not have heard them—because they were not the words I heard. We have, therefore, got into nice questions in what I may call auricular science. We hear hon. Gentlemen sitting next the hon. Member for Dungarvan giving one account of the words he used, the Clerk at the Table giving another, and the Prime Minister stating that he gave them to the best of his ability. I would suggest that a telephone or phonograph should be used in this House. Well, the Question is, that these words be taken into consideration to-morrow, and I am disputing the advisability of so taking them into consideration, and am showing that the Prime Minister, who is only half the distance from my hon. Friend that the Clerk at the Table is, did not hear the words with sufficient accuracy to give an exact account of 1567 them; whilst hon. Members are prepared to give it as their emphatic knowledge that the words taken down are not the words used. As far as I am able to judge, the words of my hon. Friend certainly do not merit the importance which the Prime Minister has attached to them; and instead of being taken into consideration to-morrow, it appears to me very desirable that the question should be postponed until the Autumn Session—["Oh, oh!"]—well, that is my opinion—and I think we shall then be more likely to have the opportunity of taking them into consideration than we shall to-morrow. If it does come on to-morrow it will interrupt the course of Business, and the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) will not have the opportunity of making his important statement, to which hon. Members are looking forward with some impatience. My objections, then, are these—first, the difficulty of hearing the words in question; secondly, their relative unimportance; and, thirdly, the interruption to Business which is likely to follow. The words imputed nothing derogatory in any sense to the Chair—they imputed to the Chair the spirit of prophecy, and in old times such a spirit was considered a qualification of exceeding excellence. It appears, however, from the statement of the Prime Minister, that if, in addition to the ordinary qualifications, hon. Members attribute to the Chair the spirit of prophecy, that is to be considered an imputation on the Chair. ["Oh, oh!"] My opinion is that it is not derogatory to the high conscientiousness of the Chair—

MR. LYULPH STANLEY
I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether the hon. Member for Wexford, under the pretence of defending—[Cries of "Oh!" and "Withdraw!"]—the hon. Member for Dungarvan, is not absolutely repeating in substance the imputation on the Chair?

§ MR. HEALY
I rise to move that the words of the hon. Member for Oldham be taken down. [Cries of "Name, Name!"]

§ MR. SPEAKER
I must ask the hon. Member for Wexford to confine himself to the Question before the House.

§ MR. HEALY
I submit that the hon. Member for Oldham imputes to me a pretence. I altogether disclaim that. If, however, it be the general sense of the 1568 House that the hon. Member is not out of Order, I will proceed. I fail to understand the interpretation of the hon. Member for Oldham, who always distinguishes himself in this House by calling out "Question!" and "Order!" [Cries of "Question!" and "Name, name!"]

§ MR. SPEAKER
I must caution the hon. Member—for the forbearance of this House has its limits—and I must distinctly call upon the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the Question before the House.

§ MR. HEALY
That is exactly what I will do, Sir. As I understand the Question before the House, it is that the words used by the hon. Member for Dungarvan should be taken into consideration to-morrow; and that being so, I am stating that the words are not of sufficient importance either to be taken into consideration to-morrow or at any other time. In my view, the words of the hon. Member did not impute to the Chair the slightest disrespect—["Oh, oh!"]—and I add, further, that you, Sir, were unable, owing to the interruptions which occurred—["No, no!"]—to follow my hon. Friend in his argument. This House has many more important things to consider besides the words of my hon. Friend, whose remarks in this case have not the importance gone-rally attached to them. It is to be deprecated that the Prime Minister should constantly be in the habit of bringing in these small matters, and of interrupting the proceedings of the House by diverting its attention to personal issues. It is not the first time that the right hon. Gentleman has done so, and I think it too much to ask 500 or 600 Gentlemen to come down here to take into consideration, not the words of an hon. Member, but an erroneous account of some chance words used in debate, and in the heat of the moment.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, he rose to express a hope, which he believed was shared by the great body of the House, that some means might be found of terminating a scene which was hardly creditable to that Assembly. They were assembled for the purpose of transacting very important Business. Not only the House, but the country, was expecting most important statements; and yet they had been, for he was afraid to say how long, engaged in a wrangle of 1569 a character which could not but lower the House in the eyes of the country, and, he might almost say, in the eyes of the civilized world. He understood the position of the ease to be this. The hon. Member for Dungarvan made use of some words which were objected to as reflecting on the conduct of the Chair. The Prime Minister moved that these words should be taken down, and they were taken down. [Cries of "No!"] At all events, some words were taken down, the precise accuracy of which was disputed by hon. Members who sat in that part of the House—and he was bound to say that he did not hear the words precisely as they were taken down, although the expression was to the same effect. A Motion was then made by the Prime Minister that the words should be considered to-morrow. This was a wise provision, which the House had always observed, in order to avoid as far as possible the heat of the moment; and it would be perfectly competent for the hon. Member for Dungarvan to explain or to qualify the words when the question of their consideration came on. But no good could result from the course now being pursued. They were now creating difficulties for themselves, that could only end in some unpleasant result; and he would earnestly request hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to divide, if they liked, against the Question of the words being taken into consideration—that was their affair—but, at all events, he hoped the House would be allowed to go on with the important Business before it.

§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON
said, he desired to make a suggestion in consequence of what the right hon. Gentleman had said. The defence of the Member for Dungarvan, as far as he understood it, was that the words were not intentionally insulting to the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman were to get up and say that he did not intend to insult the Chair, probably the Prime Minister would not press his Motion.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
wished, on a point of Order, to ask whether the words which had been taken down might not be again read from the Chair? There was considerable interruption at the time, and he could not hear all the words which were read by the Clerk at the Table; but that part which he did hear certainly did not tally with the words actually used by 1570 the hon. Member for Dungarvan. Nobody could be more anxious than he himself was to support the authority of the Chair; but he feared that in the noise and confusion which prevailed some injustice might have been done, and he hoped the words might be read again by the Clerk at the Table. Then, perhaps, the suggestion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle might be adopted.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, the practice in these matters was laid down in Hatsell's Precedents, a book of great authority. An incident very like the present one was therein recorded. On a particular occasion Sir George Hungerford made use of certain words, and a cry was raised of "Write them down," several Members repeating the words, and all differently. Afterwards a Member asked the Clerk to read the words he had written down, and Sir George Hungerford then made some apology. He ventured to say that that was a very good precedent for the present case. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) said that the words used by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) were not intended to be insulting to the Chair. The impression of the great body of the House was that they were intended as an insult to the Chair. They understood that the hon. Member for Dungarvan, after having been called to Order by the Chair, and directed to address himself more closely to the Question, instead of doing what any other Member of the House would be disposed to do and bowing to the ruling of the Chair, proceeded to attack that ruling, and to state that the Speaker had not only condemned that which he (Mr. O'Donnell) had said, but had predicted what he was going to say, and having so predicted had condemned it. ["No, no!"] Whether those were the exact words, that was the substance of what the House under stood the hon. Member for Dungarvan to say. It was quite true, as the hon. Member for Wexford had remarked, that the House had very important and most momentous Business before it, which it could not transact. They could not transact important Business if Members were to be permitted to insult the Chair. The very first condition for the transaction of Public Business was that there should be regularity, and that the authority of the Chair 1571 should be supported. Either the hon. Member for Dungarvan had intended to challenge the authority of the Chair—in which case it was plain that the House must support the Chair; or he did not intend to do so:—and if he got up and said that it was not his intention to do so, the House would be very willing to accept such explanation and apology.

§ MR. SPEAKER
As I have been asked by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) to read the words I will do so; they are to this effect:—"That the Chair had made a prediction of the words he was about to speak, and then decided upon them."

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
asked whether it would not be proper that the hon. Member for Dungarvan should be called upon to declare whether the words as taken down by the Clerk were accurately reported to the House?

§ MR. MARJORIBANKS
said, he was sitting immediately opposite to the hon. Member for Dungarvan, and paid great attention to his speech, and immediately after the utterance of the words in question wrote them down as follows:— It was very embarrassing to a Member when, not only were his words prevented reaching the Chair, but they were predicted for him before they were uttered by the presiding Authority.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
(who rose after repeated calls from the Ministerial Benches): Sir, as I have not been asked by the presiding Authority, since these charges were made against me, as to my version of the words I used, I wish only to say at the present moment that in anything I did say I had not the slightest intention of any insult against the Chair. I did intend—and I dare say when my words are read to-morrow it will be seen that I intended—to convey a very decided and strong protest against the disorderly and habitual interruptions which prevented my words reaching the Chair.

MR. GLADSTONE
I think, Sir, that although the different versions of these words vary materially, so far as the words are concerned, they are completely coincident as regards the sense. From the statement last made it appears that the Speaker, having called a Member of the House to Order, was told by that Member that he had predicted what that Member was going to say—["No!"] I may be quite wrong; but I understood that there was a distinct statement that the Chair had condemned words which 1572 had not been uttered. I cannot conceive a more distinct slight or offence conveyed to the Chair. Sir, the hon. Gentleman has just informed the House that he did not intend any offence to the Chair. It is not my desire to interfere for the purpose of pressing a division in the circumstances in which we stand; but I venture to express a hope that, whether intended or not intended as an insult to the Chair, no such words will ever be used again in this House.