[ADJOURNED DEBATE.] [TWENTY-SIXTH NIGHT.]

HC Deb 21 November 1882 vol 274 cc1798-857

Standing Order (Order in Debate) 28 February 1880, further considered.

MR. GORST

said, he proposed to insert words to secure that the Member should be "present in the House at the time" when sentence, so to speak, was pronounced on the recalcitrant Member. He thought it was the least thing they could do to require the Member to be present when they called into exercise this penal power. If he was absent, why, "let us thank God we are rid of a knave."

Amendment proposed. In line 1, after the word "Member," to insert the words "present in the House at the time."—(Mr. Gorst.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he would admit that, had they intended to continue the Rule in its original form, the Amendment would have been a very proper one; but, as the matter now stood, the Government were willing to exclude all reference to constructive Obstruction, consequently any Naming under the Resolution would either be the Naming of a single Member or more than one, the Members Named being involved in a common act taking place in the face of the House; therefore, the case against which the hon. and learned Member wished to guard would not arise. But the Amendment was not only unnecessary, it would be attended with serious inconvenience. Suppose the House in a state of tumult after a Member had flagrantly violated the Rules, and insulted the House, the offending Member, while the Speaker was waiting a minute for comparative stillness, might slip out of the House before the Amendment operated, and then come back and renew his Obstruction. If they were to adopt the manners of Dogberry they ought to have the same grounds of reason as Dogberry had. Dogberry had no reason to believe the "knave" would come back again; but it was quite evident the offending Member would be in a position to come back again. The Government agreed upon the equity of the case that constructive Obstruction should not be subject to this Rule; and, in these circumstances, he thought it unnecessary to introduce words which might frustrate some part of the action of the Chair.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, the idea which had suggested itself to the mind of the Prime Minister was ridiculous; it could only have occurred to such a mind as his. It was ludicrous to suppose a Member could insult the House, and then run away, and so prevent the operation of the Rule. He held that, in a matter of this kind, the House ought to be extremely cautious; nothing ought to be left to chance, especially after the extraordinary construction that was put upon a former Rule by Mr. Lyon Playfair on a well-known occasion. ["Oh!"] Gentlemen who cried "Oh!" forgot that on the previous night Members of the Go- vernment got up one after another and pronounced the action of the Chairman on that occasion to be extraordinary—["Hear, hear!" and "No, no!"]—and the course taken by the Government in putting down their Amendment was a distinct acknowledgment that they repudiated the Chairman's construction. ["Hear!" and "No!"] That being so, his hon. and learned Friend wished to provide against any such misconstruction of a Rule occurring again, and to that end he proposed that only present and individual action on the part of Members should be taken account of.

MR. DODSON

said, all that the Government stated was that they would alter the Rule so that it should not hereafter be applied to constructive Obstruction, and the Amendment of the Prime Minister was designed to give effect to that proposal; but that was not a repudiation by the Government of the construction of the Rule in its present form as interpreted by the Chairman of Committees.

MR. PARNELL

said, he did not propose to enter into the question of the correctness or incorrectness of the action of the Chairman of Committees on the occasion referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst). He thought the disposition of the majority of the House was to unravel this question as quickly and as well as they could, and, as regarded the action of the past, to let bygones be bygones. It was admitted by the Government that it was desirable that the Rule should be altered in such a way as to prevent its being applied against Members for the offence of constructive Obstruction; but the words "or otherwise" were so vague that they might be held to cover any possible offence. The offence for which Members were suspended in the Session of 1881 was that of disregarding the authority of the Chair, and not for obstructing the Business of the House. The Amendment which had been placed on the Paper by the Prime Minister included any action which might come under the definition of disregarding the authority of the Chairman, by abusing the Rules of the House, or wilfully obstructing the Business of the House, "or otherwise," which obviously included everything. The Amendment of the Prime Minister did not, therefore, limit the scope of the Resolution to some sudden offence which it might be necessary for the House to have power to meet; but it obviously applied to the whole of the offences included in the Rule. It therefore applied to the offence of constructive Obstruction, because the essence of constructive Obstruction was the joining; together at various times of several Members in the same act. The Amendment, therefore, of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham, although going only a very short way, was absolutely necessary if they wanted to carry out the views of the Government. He thought Obstruction might be fairly defined as an act of which a Member was guilty at the time he was Named by the Chairman or Speaker, and which derived its importance from what he had done himself, and not from what had been done by any number of other Members. If a Member was only to be responsible for his own acts, and if the Presiding Authority was not to be entitled to suspend him for the acts of some other Member, it should be stated in the Rule. If they were to guard against the suspension of Members for constructive Obstruction, it appeared to him that they should, amongst other provisions, adopt that proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham—namely, that the Member should be present at the time the offence was committed; otherwise he might be held responsible for the offences of somebody else at some other time, or he might be held responsible for little bits of offences committed by himself a week before, and which, taken in connection with the act which gave rise to his suspension, constituted in the mind of the Chairman the offence for which he was punished.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

objected to the Amendment, because it did not provide for what the hon. and learned Member for Chatham really desired. He hoped, under the circumstances, that the hon. and learned Member would withdraw the Amendment, and allow the subject to be re-introduced at a later stage.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, that he had listened with much surprise to the remarks of the President of the Local Government Board in reference to this point, which had rendered it necessary that the Opposition should reconsider their position with regard to it. It was evident, from what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, that the Government did not repudiate the construction which had been put upon the Rule by the Chairman of Committees last Session by which Members could be suspended in their absence.

MR. DODSON

remarked, that what he had intended to convey was that it was because the Government did not repudiate that construction of the Rule in its present form that they had thought it well to propose the alteration of the Rule.

MR. CHAPLIN

observed, that the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman amounted to a verdict of "Not Guilty" against the Chairman of Committees, with a recommendation that he should not do it again. If the Rule were framed in accordance with the general feeling of the House Members could not be suspended under it in their absence. Ho hoped that some words would be adopted which would insure offences by Members of that House being dealt with as they were committed, and that the suspension of Members en masse in their absence would not again occur.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he did not think it necessary to go back upon the old question whether the Chairman of Committees was right or not in the construction he had placed upon the Rule last Session. It was quite sufficient to know that that construction had been extremely annoying to the House, especially when it was clearly established that two or three of the suspended Members were entirely innocent. There was a general agreement upon two points; the first being that when any Member was to be punished under this Resolution, the punishment was to be immediate upon the offence being committed, and that there should be no idea in the mind of the Chairman of bit-by-bit offences accumulating at length—in the hon. Member being Named. It had been objected that under this Amendment the Member might go out of the House, and thus escape the punishment. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) suggested that he should be brought back again; but they could not do that without using a machinery which would occupy a great deal of time. The Government had shown every disposition to meet the point; but he should be very glad if they would get rid of these con- structive and collective offences. They were not worth fighting about; but, at the same time, he would use every means for keeping order in the House.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he hoped that if the Government could not accept this Amendment they would propose some other words, to carry out the object they had in view. The Member should be present in the House when he was Named, and the punishment should follow immediately on the offence being committed. He would suggest that they might introduce words that, "whenever any Member, after an offence has been committed, shall be Named," &c., or they might add a Proviso to the effect that any person so Named should be Named forthwith.

MR. GLADSTONE

entirely agreed with the principle of the Amendments suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, and was of opinion that the Proviso introduced last night would secure such an operation of the Rule.

MR. ASHMEAD BARTLETT

suggested that some period of time should be inserted after the commission of the offence within which alone a Member could be Named.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he did not believe the Amendment announced by the Government would carry out the object that was intended by the Government; and he would, therefore, suggest the insertion in the second line of the Government Amendment, after the words "Chairman of a Committee of the Whole House," the words "immediately after the commission of the offence," which would prevent such a thing again taking place as occurred with respect to the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum) during last Session.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he had no objection to these words.

MR. NEWDEGATE,

with regard to Naming a number of Members collectively by the Chairman of Committees, desired to call the attention of the House to their former practice. [Cries of "Divide" from the Ministerial Benches.] Those interruptions appeared as if hon. Members were ashamed of the House in which they sat, and had no faith in its fairness; but he had always believed that the House of Commons was distinguished for its justice, its legislation, and its internal discipline. He had risen to say, however, that he hoped some words to the effect of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) would be introduced into the Resolution, because he had a vivid recollection of the case of the late Mr. Smith O'Brien. When that hon. Gentleman refused to serve on a Committee of this House, the House sent its messenger for him, and when, in obedience to that summons, Mr. O'Brien came, he proceeded to take his place in the House, but was told to retire to the Bar, because the House was still deliberating as to what penalty should be inflicted; but the hon. Member was allowed to be present, and had the opportunity of claiming to be heard before any judgment was given, and of apologizing to the House before the penalty was enforced. Remembering that precedent, he agreed entirely in the object of the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham.

MR. WARTON

suggested that the Standing Order should be re-cast, so as to place the offence first and the punishment afterwards, as was done in all Acts of Parliament dealing with offences.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he thought it was only reasonable that the Government should agree to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham. He (Mr. Biggar) protested against Members being Named when not in the House.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

believed that if the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) were adopted, the Standing Order would be rendered much clearer.

MR. GORST

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that that of his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wigtown (Sir John Hay) were adopted.

MR. SALT

said, he would support the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), if he put it into words and moved it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

moved to amend the Resolution in line 1, by inserting, after "Member," the words "after a full and reasonable notice." The object of the Amendment was to remove all doubt as to the wilful character of the offence, and to prevent a recurrence of the well-known incident when a considerable number of Members were Named by the Chairman of Committees without any notice whatever having been given to the hon. Gentlemen concerned. The indulgence shown by the Speaker was beyond all praise, and it was desirable to enshrine his rulings in these Resolutions. The Amendment was an attempt in that direction. He hoped that the Prime Minister would accept it, bearing in mind his own words when the Resolution was originally passed in 1880, that it was safer to err on the side of leniency than of severity.

Amendment proposed, In line 1, after the word "Member," to insert the words "after a full and reasonable notice."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GLADSTONE,

in opposing the Amendment said, he would not dwell too much on the fact that in discussing the 5th Resolution the proposal to make notice an absolute condition was negatived, because then they were dealing with light penalties, and in the present Resolution with heavy ones. He would further admit that, in ordinary cases, it was a correct assumption that the Speaker or the Chairman would give notice. That had been the ordinary practice of the Chair, and he hoped that it would always be pursued. But he objected to any word being inserted in the Resolution to bind the discretion of the Chair for two reasons. In the first place, there might be cases where the disobedience and breach of the order and decency of the House was so palpable and violent, and so plainly indicated a determined will of disobedience, that notice would really be disparaging to the authority and dignity of the House. It was not the case that it had been the uniform practice of the Speaker to give notice; for in the great case where the Members remained in the House in defiance of the order of the Speaker no Notice was given.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

The Speaker did give notice.

MR. SEXTON

After the first division, the Speaker informed the hon. Members who remained in the Houae that if they repeated their conduct he would take notice of it.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that, at all events, there was no necessity to give notice. If the Speaker presumed ignorance, it was a charitable presumption, for the act was done in defiance of the express order of the Speaker that the Members should quit the House. A stronger and more palpable argument in favour of vesting the discretion in the Speaker could be drawn from the case of a Member who, after being punished for his first offence, deliberately committed a second. Could it be said that warning was again to be given him? No doubt, as a general rule, warning would be given in the case of the first offence, but not for the second. There might be new forms of disobedience with which the House was not acquainted. The House was yet young in this science, and as they grew older the professors of the art might improve and develop it. He thought, therefore, that for the first offence the warning should be at the discretion of the residing Officer; and that in the case of the second offence it would be injurious and disparaging to the dignity of the House that any warning should be given. For those reasons he was opposed to the Amendment.

MR. GREGORY

said, he did not think the words proposed by the noble Lord were workable. There was no jury in the House to say what was "full and reasonable notice." He urged the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment in favour of the one which the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had intimated his intention of moving.

MR. ONSLOW

said, that it should not be forgotten that these Rules were to apply when the Chairman of Ways and Means was in the Chair. It ought to be provided that full notice should be given by the Chairman that hon. Members were disregarding his authority. In laying down hard-and-fast Rules provision should be made that Members were treated in a proper way, and that such occurrences as took place last Session should not happen again. The Amendment of the noble Lord was not explicit enough, while it went too far. He would suggest that "ample notice" should be substituted for "full and sufficient."

MR. SYNAN

approved of the principle of the noble Lord's Amendment, that warning should be given to Members that they were offending; but he thought that the words used were too vague and general.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

suggested the withdrawal of the Amendment, and the settlement of the question by the means the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had recommended.

MR. WHITBREAD

believed that every Member who had been Named for Obstruction had been repeatedly warned by the Speaker before being silenced. ["No!"] When he said that Members had always been warned, he meant that their attention had been called to the fact that they had strayed from the Question to which they ought to have confined themselves. There were other cases besides cases of Obstruction to which the Amendment of the noble Lord would apply—namely, cases in which well-defined Rules were directly and flagrantly violated. To lay down that a Member guilty of such violations was entitled to warning would be absurd.

MR. GORST

argued that, in the opinion of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), the conduct of the Speaker on more than one occasion must have been absurd, for it had happened more than once that the Speaker had warned Members who were wilfully disregarding the Rules of the House before Naming them. In one case the warning was repeated two or three times. He referred to the occasion when 27 Members refused to go into the Lobby and vote. The hon. Member for Bedford was mistaken when he said that there was no instance of a suspension for Obstruction which had not been preceded by several warnings. Had the hon. Member never heard of the case of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum), who was suspended on a memorable occasion, not only without previous warning, but just after his entry into the House after a night spent in bed?

MR. HOPWOOD

contended that, in cases of flagrant violation of the Rules of the House, no warning should be necessary before the punishment of the delinquent.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that, on the occasion when 27 Irish Members were suspended, so far from the Chairman giving them any warning, he had only been a few minutes in the House, and did not know what had taken place.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 184: Majority 131.—(Div. List, No. 386.)

MR. WARTON

proposed to omit all the words from "have," in line 1, to "disregarding," in line 3, and to insert the word "disregarded." The effect of that, with two or three consequential Amendments, would be to put the horse before the cart, instead of putting the cart before the horse, as the Standing Order did at present. They would have the offence first and the punishment after. The Rule would then read thus— That whenever any Member shall have disregarded the authority of the Chair or abused the Rules of the House, then, if the offence be committed in the House, he may forthwith be named by the Speaker.

Amendment proposed, In line 1, to leave out the words "have been named by the Speaker, or by the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House, as disregarding," and insert the word "disregarded,"—(Mr. Warton,)

—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words' been named by the Speaker' stand part of the said Standing Order."

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he thought the question raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman would be very well worth considering if they were in a private room or a Committee Room engaged in drawing up this Resolution for the first time. But to attempt to readjust it at present would only throw them into confusion, while no substantial advantage would be gained.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

observed that, as one who had encouraged his hon. and learned Friend to propose the Amendment, he thought the form suggested would be a decided improvement; but, after what had fallen from the Prime Minister, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GLADSTONE

moved to insert the words "immediately after the commission of the offence," which Amendment would provide against the possibility of a Member being Named for constructive Obstruction.

Amendment proposed, In line 2, after the word "House," to insert the words "immediately after the commission of the offence."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. PARNELL

moved to add to the Prime Minister's Amendment the words "by such Member," in order to completely carry out the principle that each Member shall be Named separately.

Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, to add, at the end thereof, the words "by such Member."—(Mr. Parnell.)

Question proposed, "That those words be added to the said proposed Amendment."

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that he should propose certain subsesequent Amendments, which would meet the object which the hon. Member had in view.

Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Words inserted.

Amendment made, inline 3, by leaving out the word "as," and inserting the word "of,"—(Mr. Gladstone,)—instead thereof.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

moved the omission of the words "disregarding the authority of the Chair," which, in his opinion, either were superfluous or created a new Parliamentary offence. The Speaker or Chairman acted under the directions of the House, and an offence against the authority of the Chair was an offence against the Rules of the House. The relations between the House and the Chair, which had been much strained lately, would probably be altogether changed by the New Rules of Procedure; and it would be well, as it seemed to him, that the discretion of the Chair should be limited by the directions of the House.

[The Amendment, not being seconded, could not be put.]

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he thought the Rule ought to discriminate between accidental and wilful disregard. He would have preferred the words "insulting and disregarding;" but, as he could not obtain support for the word "insulting," he moved to insert the word "wilfully."

Amendment proposed, in line 3, after the foregoing Amendment, to insert the word "wilfully."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'wilfully' be there inserted."

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that a Speaker or Chairman would not enforce the Rule for accidental disregard; and, as the Rule had been in operation for years without revealing the supposed defect, he appealed to the hon. Member to leave the matter to the discretion of the Chair.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made, in line 3, by inserting after the word "or," the word "of."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

rose to move the omission of the words "abusing the Rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the Business of the House." He said, they were absolutely unnecessary, because such abuse was now impossible with the New Rules, under which several Members had been called to Order.

MR. SPEAKER

said, the House having inserted the word "of" after "or," the Resolution would not read if the Amendment were carried.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I got up to move my Amendment before the Prime Minister moved his.

MR. SPEAKER

As the Resolution now stands, the Amendment cannot be put from the Chair, because, if it were carried, the Resolution would not be sense.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he should limit his Amendment to the omission of the words "by persistently and wilfully obstructing the Business of the House." It seemed almost impossible to devise methods of Obstruction now. There could be no Obstruction in debate, or in divisions, or in making long speeches for that purpose, as the Resolutions already passed could be put in force. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had put down several Notices of Motion on one subject to prevent a Motion on another subject coming on. Was he to be suspended for abusing the Rules of the House in that way? On Monday night the hon. Member moved the adjournment of the House in order to prevent the House reaching that Motion, which the Government professed to be anxious to bring on; and although this was done wilfully and deliberately, the hon. Member was not suspended, though, if an Irish Member had done as much, he would have been in considerable danger. He did not think it was possible for the Government to make out any case for retaining these words, and the Resolution would be greatly simplified if so tremendous a penalty were imposed only for disregard of the authority of the Chair.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said Standing Order, as amended."

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he thought that the noble Lord had moved an Amendment which might act against his own views. If the House should agree to this Amendment, they would leave the Speaker and Chairman with very much larger powers and authority than if the words were left in the clause, as neither would take wilful and persistent Obstruction alone into view. It was in the interests of individual Members that the words were inserted, because they indicated to the Speaker or Chairman the kind of abuse which the House had in mind when they agreed to the Rule. The words stood well as they were, and should not be altered.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he would have supported the Amendment as it originally stood; but he thought that if it were carried in its present form this severe penalty might be inflicted for the infringement of any Rule of the House.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

moved to leave out the words "or otherwise," and, in support of the Amendment, cited a speech made by the Prime Minister upon the introduction by the late Government of their Rule for dealing with Obstruction. The right hon. Gentleman had on that occasion objected to the words "or otherwise" being in the Resolution, on the ground that whereas the Resolution was aimed at the offence of "wilful and persistent Obstruction," if those words were retained the Rule might be applied to the abuse by any Member of any Rule of the House. The noble Lord was perfectly content to rest his objection to the words upon the ground then stated by the Prime Minister.

Amendment proposed, in line 5, to leave out the words "or otherwise."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'or otherwise' stand part of the said Standing Order, as amended."

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that he was not responsible for the report of his speech, but he accepted it; but he must point out that at that time they were dealing, not with Procedure generally, but with some specific offence; and he submitted to the House whether they ought not to confine their proceedings to that one specific offence. That was the idea which lay at the root of his remarks. He did not press his objection, however, and he believed the House did determine to legislate so far as to make its penal Resolution applicable to every species of offence. As they were now considering generally the question of altering the authority of the House, he had not the least hesitation in accepting the authority of the decision of the House against the suggestion which he then made.

MR. WARTON

supported the Amendment.

MR. GORST

said, it seemed to him that the conduct of the Government in the matter was extremely inconsistent. By the retention of the words "or otherwise" the restriction previously contained in the Resolution would be removed. They might as well leave out all the words of definition and leave the matter wholly in the Speaker's discretion.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he did not agree with his hon. and learned Friend. If the words preceding "or otherwise" were omitted, there would be no words of discretion or restriction to the Speaker. There was a discretion given to him as to the nature of the offence, and after the words defining the offence came the words "or otherwise." His hon. and learned Friend well knew that in the definition of an offence general words must be construed in correspondence with particular words.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

said, the words were either without meaning or they had a dangerous meaning. In either case they ought to be rejected.

MR. WHITBREAD

supported the words of the Rule, declaring his belief that, so far from Obstruction being a perfect science, Members indulging in it were as yet only entering a vast territory not 100th part of which they had surveyed or mapped out. When Obstruction was being persisted in, in the last two Sessions, he used to wonder night after night at the immense fields of Obstruction to which they seemed perfectly blind. The only alternative to the retention of the words would be to frame an exhaustive catalogue of offences punishable, which would be an invidious and disagreeable task.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he thought the question ought to be considered in connection with the penalties which were to be imposed. He thought the offence should be clearly stated; and he, therefore, hoped the Government would accept the Amendment by the omission of the words "or otherwise."

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, he thought the words "or otherwise" vague and indefinite. In fact, he thoroughly accepted the reasoning on which the Prime Minister himself two years ago opposed the insertion of those words in the Standing Order. He adhered to the text of the speech, while he rejected the Talmudical gloss upon it with which they had been favoured. Two years ago, when the House had to meet Obstruction, it laid down a Code of very mild penalties, and to-day they were asked to reform this article of the Code by making it very much more stringent. No Member at that time much cared about being suspended for an "otherwise," when the penalty was having to spend half the evening at the opera. Now, the proceeding was serious and should be accurate. If the penalties were more stringent, surely the offences should be more distinctively marked. Moreover, the words "or otherwise" were unnecessary, because the Speaker already had full power of Naming a Member who abused the Rules of the House. They had for the last few weeks been haunted by a ghost, and the Speaker of the future roamed about the House. What would he say to the uncertain responsibilities thrown upon him. The future Speaker or Chairman must, indeed, be greedy of despotism if he wanted more power than he possessed already. He had listened with wonder to the hon. Member for Bedford's (Mr. Whitbread's) picture of the illimitable vista of future Obstruction—strange and ingenious forms of torment that would have entered the imagination of no one but the hon. Member for Bedford. Let him make a suggestion to the hon. Member. They all of them recollected the tracts of their youth, which taught them so much mischief in the history of the naughty boy, who indulged in inconceivable tricks till he was transported or fell into the duck pond, and then they knew they had been reading a moral treatise. Let the hon. Member write a Parliamentary tract on that model, and give for their learning and edification the history of the wicked obstructive Member who blocked all Bills, who divided on all clauses, who counted the House when 400 Members were present, and ended by being suspended for the Session. Such a tract by the hon. Member would be far more useful than all the New Rules of Procedure.

MR. CALLAN

supported the Amendment, considering that every possible offence was included in a disregard of the authority of the Chair and abuse of the Rules of the House by persistent and wilful Obstruction.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, they ought to know distinctly what they were to be punished for. Let them have every offence specified, and then they would vote for them with pleasure.

MR. STUART-WORTLEY

said, that if the words "or otherwise" were adopted, he should, having regard to the Attorney General's explanation, move to substitute for "otherwise" the words "in some other such manner."

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 48: Majority 42.—(Div. List, No. 387.)

MR. STUART-WORTLEY

rose to move the insertion in line 5, after "otherwise," of the words "in like manner," so that the Rule should read— That whenever any Member shall have been named by the Speaker or by the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House as disregarding the authority of the Chair, or abusing the Rules of the House by wilfully obstructing the Business of the House or otherwise in like manner. This alteration or addition of the words "in like manner" would have the effect of expressing the intention of the Attorney General, as explained by him in the remarks he had just addressed to the House. He (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) might say that they (the Opposition) did not see what form of abuse there was that a Member was likely to be guilty of, and that the ancient usages and Rules of Procedure already passed would not meet. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whit-bread), during his speech, did not mention any offence that could not be dealt with under the Rules they had passed; and therefore it was why they wished to have those words inserted after the word "otherwise."

Amendment proposed, in line 5, after the word "otherwise," to insert the words "in like manner."—(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GLADSTONE

observed that, of course, it might be said that every offence came under the head of disregard of the authority of the Chair when once it was noticed by the Chair; but the House did not proceed on that principle, but had thought fit to make certain indications. It had likewise felt that if it made an indication, it was not enough to indicate wilful Obstruction alone; and the Attorney General had shown that the other acts of abuse of the Rules of the House contemplated by the Resolution should be in the same rank and degree. But the words "in like manner" now proposed by the hon. and learned Member opposite were words of hopeless ambiguity, and he must object to their insertion. How could it be said that gross misconduct—for example, entering the House in a state not of perfect self-possession, through the use of articles to which the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) objected, or 20 other things which might be named were it not too offensive to mention them, were "in like manner" with wilful Obstruction? It was intended that the other offences coming within the Rule must be in the same rank or degree.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, they had heard much of the deterioration of the House of Commons, and the idea must have taken a strong hold of the Prime Minister's mind, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman insisted on retaining the words "or otherwise" and objected to the words "in like manner," because, in future, Members were to come to the House in a state of intoxication, and the words "or otherwise" were to prevent their escaping unpunished for that offence.

MR. WARTON

supported the Amendment. He thought the Prime Minister believed in the supremacy of his own intellect, and had such a contempt for his own supporters that his action was directed to show how subservient they were to him.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he thought the illustration given by the Prime Minister in support of his argument was not a very happy one. If the offences which the right hon. Gentleman indicated were committed, the culprit must have brought himself conspicuously to the notice of the Speaker; and some of the Rules already passed, or the ancient usages of the House, could be easily applied to the case. However, it was clear that the decision of the House had been taken on the whole question upon the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), and his hon. and learned Friend would do well to content himself with having made a vigorous attempt to make the meaning and language of the Attorney General clear.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

felt it to be rather hard that it should be sought to fix upon him words for which the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners) and his Colleagues in the late Government were originally responsible, as they appeared in their own Resolution. He now objected, however, to the insertion of the words "in like manner," because they would mean that the Obstruction must not only be of a similar kind, but that the mode of carrying it on must be similar.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

admitted that the late Government were responsible for the terms of their Resolution; but pointed out that action had been taken under it such as they had never contemplated, and that it was, therefore, now desirable to guard against the recurrence of such a state of things.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he thought it would be sufficient punishment if the doorkeepers were instructed to remove an hon. Member under the circumstances described, and the House would be thoroughly justified in dividing upon such a matter. The point raised by the Attorney General, that these words were used by a Member of a former Government, was a very small one, and he would support the Amendment if a division was taken.

MR. PEMBERTON

expressed the opinion that no lawyer could have drawn the clause in any other way. It was perfectly clear that the words would be confined, as the Attorney General stated, to cases ejusdem generis.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL,

in proposing to insert in line 5, after the word "then," the words— After the nature of the offence and the grounds upon which such Member has been named shall have been stated and entered upon the Journals of the House, regretted that the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) was prevented by indisposition from moving the Amendment which stood in his name. Unless the Government were in an unusually captious frame of mind they would be disposed to agree with it. On the celebrated occasion when the 27 Members were expelled, the circumstances were entered at great length upon the Journals of the House; he found that three columns were occupied by that incident. But when the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) was suspended, on March 8, for disregarding the authority of the Chair, that was the only entry he could find relative to the event, though the question was subsequently brought forward by the hon. Member himself and a lengthy debate took place. The necessity of some such Amendment was, moreover, increased by the fact that the penalties for such disregard were now enormously increased.

Amendment proposed, In line 5, after the word "then," to insert the words "after the nature of the offence and the grounds upon which such Member has been named shall have been stated and entered upon the Journals of the House."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that the Government felt some sympathy with the purpose of the noble Lord, and certainly were not aware of being in any unusually captious humour.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

explained that he had said the Government would be in a captious frame of mind if they did not agree with the Amendment.

MR. GLADSTONE

Exactly, if they did not accept the Amendment of the noble Lord. But if they were in such a frame of mind they would rather seek to find verbal difficulties than loyally support the Rule introduced by the late Government. It would, however, be making an entirely new precedent if they were to fix a form to be entered in the Journals of the House; it would also be unnecessary, for if there was one thing more than another in which the officers of the House under the superintendence of the Speaker were to be trusted, it was in framing the Records of the House. A vast number of acts of importance were recorded in the Votes under the responsibility of the Speaker; and, although the process was necessarily a hasty one, all would agree that the record was, on the whole, admirably made. He was glad, however, the noble Lord had mentioned the subject, though, at the same time, he must point out that it was not to be supposed that they could arrest the Business of the House in order that the entry might be made.

COLONEL STANLEY

said, he was glad to hear that the act resulting in the suspension of a Member would in future be noticed in the Journals of the House. He thought the noble Lord had done good service in drawing attention to the matter.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

asked the Speaker whether he would direct the officers of the House to record more fully the nature of the offences committed when Members were suspended?

MR. SPEAKER

The entries in the Journals have hitherto been made according to precedent; but, as my attention has been called to the matter, I will consider the desirability of the change suggested, but I will enter into no engagement.

MR. CALLAN

said, it was desirable that the facts as disclosed in Hansard should be placed upon the Journals of the House, in order that the official record might give fully the true grounds of suspension.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made, in line 5, by inserting, after the word "committed," the words "by such Member."—(Mr. Parnell.)

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

moved the insertion of the words "except a statement from the Member so named;" the object of the Amendment being to enable a Member before his suspension to make a statement of his case, and, if he pleased, to apologize to the House. A Member might have used language in a moment of passion which he would at once withdraw, and offer an ample apology; and he thought that provision should be made for such cases. He did not expect that this Rule would be used against the Conservative Party, or against the Liberal Party; but it was likely to be applied against Members of the Irish Party, who often used language to which they did not attach the same importance as their audience. He contended that such a locus pœnitentiœ ought to be afforded to an offending Member, especially as the penalties involved by suspension were to be considerably increased.

Amendment proposed, In line 7, after the word "Debate," to insert the words "except a statement from a Member so named."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he would not commit himself to the opinion that in any form this proposal could be adopted; but it could not be adopted in its present form. The word "statement" by no means pointed to apology or withdrawal, and naturally meant an argument by the Member in his own defence. That argument would obviously be directed against the decision of the Presiding Officer; while the Speaker, whose decision was impugned, would have no opportunity of replying.

MR. BUCHANAN

said, he was not suprised that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had not himself appeared in his place to move this Amendment, because it would be found that when this Standing Order was first proposed in 1880, an Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) very much to the same effect as the present Amendment, and amongst those who voted against it was the hon. and learned Member for Chatham. He hoped that the House would on no account agree to the Amendment. The principal objection to it had been clearly stated by the Prime Minister—that any explanation or statement would naturally take the form of a statement in opposition to the ruling of the Chair, and the Chair would be precluded by the custom of the House from making a reply.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he would suggest the introduction of words allowing a Member to withdraw or apologize.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. SEXTON

said, he thought the Amendment was entitled to a more favourable reception than it had received. Unquestionably the Amendment struck a very grave defect and exposed a very grave injustice in the Resolution of the Government. The Amendment simply pleaded for the right of being heard in self-defence. That was a privilege accorded to the lowest criminals, and yet the Members of the highest Court in the Realm were to be deprived of it. He should like to know for what reason the Government had withdrawn from a more oppressive Resolution a privilege which had been accorded under a Resolution of a less stringent character? It was a great hardship that a constituency should be disfranchised, possibly at the beginning of a Session, because of some momentary or pardonable lapse, perhaps, of temper on the part of hon. Members. He remembered an instance in which an hon. Member was suspended for endeavouring to explain to the Speaker. This was likely to occur, especially in the case of new Members who had no experience of the Rules of the House. If the principle of the Amendment were adopted, he felt sure that in the majority of cases the House would escape a division and the Member be saved the extreme penalty. At the same time he did not think that the Amendment proposed was he most suitable; but he thought it would be easy to find some words which would remove this great blot and defect in the Resolution, and save a good deal of heartburning.

MR. GORST

supported the Amendment. A Member ought certainly to have the opportunity of being heard before the House decided to inflict a penalty on him. If the Amendment were withdrawn, he hoped that words would be brought up allowing a Member to make an explanation or apology to the House. He did not anticipate that there would be any abuse of the privilege, and it was contrary to justice to condemn anyone unheard.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, that the hon. and learned Member now contended that it was contrary to justice to condemn any hon. Member for an offence unheard. As had been already pointed out, a precisely similar proposal to this was discussed in the time of the late Parliament, and the hon. and learned Member then took exactly the opposite view to that which he now advocated. [Mr. GORST: No, no!] He (Mr. Chamberlain) had in his hand the Division List for that occasion, and he found the Amendment then moved was to permit any Member who had been Named to offer such explanation, defence, or apology as he should think fit, for a time not exceeding 10 minutes. Against that proposal, which he now supported, the hon. and learned Member for Chatham then voted.

MR. GORST

I am very sorry for it. I must have voted in that way quite inadvertently.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he was glad to hear the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and what was true of the hon. and learned Gentleman was, perhaps, true of the whole Conservative Party, because the whole Conservative Party voted on the occasion in question against the Amendment. No doubt they also voted inadvertently, like the hon. and learned Gentleman. With reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), he would point out that under the Rule, as it was proposed to be amended by the Government, there were three penalties for three different offences. There was suspension for a week, for a month, and for the remainder of the Session. After suffering the first and second penalties, a Member would be able, as contemplated by the existing Rule, to raise his case and have a debate by putting down a Motion calling the decision in question. It was true that he could not debate it at the time of his suspension; but there was nothing to prevent his doing so subsequently. The hon. Member urged that it was desirable that in all cases the person suspended should be permitted to make a statement or apology. But those two things were different. The objection to allowing a Member to make a statement was very well put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon, then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Northcote), in the debate to which reference had been made. He said that he did not think it would be reasonable to make a statement without allowing the Speaker or the Chairman to reply to such statements, or perhaps misrepresentations, as were made. It was absolutely impossible to allow a Member to make a statement, which might be an accusation against the Presiding Officer of the House, without allowing him to reply. Then the suggestion of the hon. Member was that, at least, a Member might be allowed to withdraw any statement or expression which his excitement might have betrayed him into making. The answer to that was that he would be allowed to withdraw. It was impossible but that he should be, in the first instance, called upon to withdraw. In the case of the hon. Member who was last suspended by the House, no less than 11 distinct opportunities were given him to withdraw the objectionable words. If the object of hon. Members was only to permit an apology which was not to extend into a general statement, he had to say that that object was amply provided for by the existing Rules.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, that if Conservative Members voted against this proposal in the last Parliament, Liberal Members must have voted for it, and the right hon. Gentleman was now opposing what he then supported. ["No, no!"] If the minority was not composed of Liberals, he was at a loss to know who was in that Lobby. He wished to point out that the Rule was now proposed to be made much more severe than formerly. Under the existing Rule, the first suspension was for the Sitting, the second for the Sitting, and the third for a week, with a right to a Member to be beard in his place if a Motion were made to continue his suspension. But, under the Rule as proposed to be amended, the first suspension was to be for a week, the second for a month, and the third for the remainder of the Session; and a Member was not given the opportunity of speaking in his own defence at all. He did not think that the House ought to pass the Resolution unless the Government expressed some intention to modify that part of it denying a Member suspended for a third time the right to be heard.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

said, he contended that a Member Named by the Chair ought to be allowed to make a statement. In several cases of Irish Members being suspended, notably in that of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), who was prevented from finishing his sentence, five minutes' explanation would have prevented any suspension taking place.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, that he had an Amendment to enable Members before suspension for a longer period than one Sitting to make an explanation or apology. The Amendment he proposed would deal with the question more comprehensively than the Amendment before before the House.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In line 7, after the word "Debate," to insert the words "except a statement from the Member named, strictly confined to explanation or apology."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. DODSON

said, the Government could not accept the Amendment. It would have the effect of opening the door to an indefinite width, and of practically defeating the object of the Rule.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, he rose to move the Amendment to which he had just referred. Its object was to allow a Member Named an opportunity of apologizing before the penalty of suspension for any considerable time was imposed upon him. He explained that the Amendment, while providing that the Member should be suspended during the remainder of the Sitting at which the offence was committed, suspension for a prolonged period should not be inflicted upon him until the House had had time to consider the matter, and the Member had had time to reflect upon the advisability of offering an apology. In the heat of debate Members often used language which they afterwards considered unjustifiable, and it was to give such Members an opportunity of apologizing that he moved the Amendment. He could look at this question from a thoroughly disinterested point of view. He was one of the few Irish Members who had never been suspended. He had never felt it to be his duty to incur the censure of the House; but while saying that he felt in no way entitled to use a word of condemnation against other Irish Members who took a different view of their duty. He was aware at the time that the censure of the House was incurred by many Members that that censure would have been invaluable to him at some future time; for there was nothing so popular in Ireland as to commit some kind of outrage upon the House of Commons; but he had never felt it incumbent for electioneering or any other advantages to incur that censure. He had seen the greatest injustice done to hon. Members who were suspended, and it was to avert that injustice in future that he moved the Amendment.

MR. SPEAKER

pointed out that there was a difficulty in putting the Amendment, because it did not fit in with the context. In no preceding part of the Rule was the word "suspension" spoken of.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, he made a mistake. He ought to have been placed a few lines lower down in the Resolution.

MR. NEWDEGATE,

in rising to move the following Amendment:—In line 8, leave out all after "service of the House," and insert— If such Question, thus put by Mr. Speaker, shall be decided by the House in the affirmative, the suspension of such Member shall continue until the House has further considered it; and Mr. Speaker shall, immediately after such Question has been decided in the affirmative, cause a Notice to be placed on the Notice Paper, to the effect, that at the next Sitting of the House but one, before any other business is taken, Mr. Speaker will put a Question to the House, as to whether such Member be relieved from such suspension, or whether such suspension shall be continued for a further time, or whether any other judgment of the House with respect to such Member shall be pronounced. A Motion may thereupon be made; not more than two Amendments to such Motion shall be permitted; not more than three Members shall be allowed to speak either upon the Original Motion, or upon any Amendment proposed thereto; and no Member shall be allowed to speak in any such Debate during more than fifteen minutes. Not more than one Motion for Adjournment shall be permitted while the conduct of the Member, who has been suspended, is under the consideration of the House; not more than two Members shall be allowed to speak upon such Motion for Adjournment, and not longer than during ten minutes. Should no Motion be made after Mr. Speaker has put the Original Question, the suspension of a Member, to whom Mr. Speaker's Notice relates shall be held to have been terminated. If notice be taken in a Committee of the Whole House by the Chairman, that a Member has been guilty of persistent obstruction to the business of such Committee, or otherwise, the Chairman may name such Member and put a Question to Report Progress and ask leave to sit again, which Question shall be decided without Debate, Amendment, or Adjournment. If such Question shall be decided in the affirmative, when the House resumes, the Chairman shall forthwith Report to the Speaker, that notice had been taken, that such Member had been guilty of Obstruction, or otherwise, and a Question, that such Member be suspended may be put, as if such offence had been committed in the House itself, said, he wished, at the outset, to express his thorough concurrence in the object with which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had proposed the Resolution before the House. He (Mr. Newdegate) had been a Member of the Select Committee on Public Business in 1878: and after having provided that Committee with the statistics which showed the grossly obstructive, and he might say destructive course, pursued by some 20 or 30 hon. Members from Ireland in derogation of the order and efficiency of the House, be (Mr. Newdegate) witnessed the scenes of last year and of the present year. He, therefore, made up his mind that the House ought to revert to the enforcement of its ancient usages and penalties upon disorder. The Standing Order which was adopted at the instance of his right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), on the 28th of February, 1880, appeared to him from its inception quite inadequate, for it imposed suspension for one night only as the penalty upon the gravest disorder, a penalty which experience had proved totally inadequate. He hoped that, the hon. Members who were sitting near him—the Irish section of Home Rulers—would not think that he imputed to them, as individuals, a desire to destroy the efficiency of the House. The hon. Member, who had just addressed the House (Mr. Macfarlane), said, that he had not joined in that unfortunate enterprize; and he (Mr. Newdegate) was convinced the other hon. Members to whom he alluded had entered upon that rash enterprize under influences outside the House, which directed their constituents, and inspired them with a mistaken feeling of outraged patriotism and nationality. The fact of the House being in Session at that period of the year for the purpose of considering what might be done to recover the efficiency of the House afforded evidence enough that the subject was one of importance to the whole United Kingdom. He desired to call attention to this circumstance that both in the Standing Order of the 28th of February, 1880, framed by his right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon, whose absence from the House on that occasion he greatly deplored, for he knew that his right hon. Friend concurred generally in the opinion he (Mr. Newdegate) entertained.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

MR. NEWDEGATE,

resuming, said, that he was much indebted to the hon. Member for Cavan for having recalled from other occupations so many Members of the House, for it happened to be the hour when Members were necessarily refreshing themselves. He would revert to what he was saying when this interruption took place. Both in the Standing Order framed by his right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon, and in the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had proposed, the following words occurred—indeed, the proposals of both the right hon. Gentlemen concluded with the words— Provided always, that nothing in this Resolution shall be taken to deprive the House of the power of proceeding against any Member according to ancient usages. He (Mr. Newdegate) rejoiced at this testimony to the justice and to the effi- ciency of the Common Law, which pervaded the usages of the House, and which, in fact, formed the very basis of its discipline. But he had strongly felt, when Notice of this 9th Resolution was given, that it might form the commencement of a different system in the enforcement of the Regulations of the House. Whilst the Standing Order extended only to the suspension of a Member for one night, however serious might be his offence, the principle involved was not worth cavilling about. But now, when it was proposed enormously to increase the penalties which would be imposed by this summary and arbitrary process, he thought it was time that the House should consider whether some adequate notice ought not to be given to hon. Members generally of the intention to inflict these penalties, and not upon hon. Members, but upon constituencies. Suspension for a night was one thing, but suspension for a Session would be a serious deprivation of their representation to any constituency. When, therefore, he remembered in the days gone by, before that coverslut of the ballot had been adopted, how great had been the determination manifested by the House to secure the purity of elections, it was difficult to imagine that the House would abrogate, without due notice and without due deliberation, the representation of any constituency for a Session on account of the action, however reprehensible, of its Representative. Some hon. Members said his Amendment was long. But why was it so long? Because it summarized in outline the ancient usages of the House with respect to its internal discipline, which both the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon, in framing the Standing Order, and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in framing his Amendment, had expressed their desire to retain. His (Mr. Newdegate's) object had been to retain effectual means for enforcing the ancient discipline, and to do this without giving opportunity for Obstruction. When the House came to the infliction of severer penalties upon Members and upon constituencies through their Members, he asked himself, and he asked the House, why should this necessary disciplinary action be an exception from the general system which had long prevailed in the House? Why should those penalties be enforced upon a system alien to that by which the discipline of the House had hitherto been maintained? He was aware that these considerations might not have occurred to many Members of the House; but the senior Members knew the system upon which the internal discipline of the House was founded—that it was founded upon the Common Law of England, and that the same kind of securities for notice, analogous securities for deliberate trial pervaded the ancient usages of the House that pervaded the administration in the highest Common Law Courts. Whilst the penalty was only suspension for one night from the service of the House, there was less reason for objecting to such suspension not being inflicted in a manner that was abrupt and summary. But he asked whether greater precautions for the administration of justice by the giving of due notice and the like were not provided in the higher Courts of Judicature in this country than were deemed necessary in Police Courts and before Justices in Petty Sessions? And why was this? Because the Police Magistrates and the Justices in Petty Sessions could only entertain minor offences and inflict minor penalties; but in proportion as the crimes to be adjudicated upon increased in gravity and the penalties attached to them in weight, so proportionately were the securities and precautions for fairness of trial increased in the higher Courts of Judicature, which hence far outnumbered and outweighed those of the Police Courts and other inferior tribunals. While, then, he concurred in the object of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in providing sufficient means for repressing—aye, for crushing—rebellion in the House, he deprecated the adoption of this drumhead court martial system of administration, this arbitrary infliction of increased penalties. He (Mr. Newdegate) had himself been engaged as a Justice of the Peace in the repression of disturbances in the year 1841, and again in 1848, and had been under the necessity of observing the difference between the Common Law and Military Law. He had had to seek advice and. to learn this difference before he engaged in suppressing riot. What was the object in view under the Common Law, and what the system of procedure? The police magistrate or justice acting under the Common Law, when called upon to quell a riot, found that it was their first duty to detect and to arrest the ringleaders; in other words, their duty was to deal with and to repress violence—to detect and repress individual violence or crime. Then, if they failed in this duty, and found that the riot was so serious that measures must be taken against large numbers of rioters, what became their duty? The police magistrate, or two Justices of the Peace present, were bound to give notice that the Riot Act would be read. They were bound to give public notice, so that the mob could hear. And why were they bound to do that? Because the reading of the Riot Act meant this—the suppression of the Common Law by Military Law, and that the responsibility of action was transferred from the civil magistrate to the officer commanding the troops. By proposing that this summary process, this drumhead court-martial process, under which suspension for one night had been inflicted upon Members of the House under the Standing Order, should extend to the greater penalties of suspension for a week, a month, or a Session, they travelled into a different sphere, and were bound to take the same precautions that the higher Courts observed, not unduly to infringe the liberty of the subject. When inflicting heavier penalties the House ought not to dispense with precautions like those observed in the higher Courts; they had no right, in dealing with grave offences, and in meting out enlarged penalties, to adopt the summary jurisdiction exercised by the Police Courts and the Justices in Petty Sessions. He observed, however, with regret, that there was a growing disposition to adopt an arbitrary system of procedure in the House; and it was shown in the Notice which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to deal penally with the Members of the House by sections, and not individually. That betokened the importation of a different Code. It meant the substitution of a system analogous to that of military law, and was totally alien to the system of Common Law, in strict analogy with which the whole of the ancient usages of the House had for centuries provided for the preservation of order in that House. He wished that House to understand that his one chief object in having given Notice of his Amendment was to have the opportunity of expressing these convictions. He feared that the House were on the verge of travelling out of their ancient system. It appeared to him that it was proposed to supersede the foundation of their ancient usages in treating offences of great gravity, by the adoption of another system, an arbitrary and an alien system, which was identified in this country with that of military law. He would ask the House to view the matter in yet another aspect; when he said that a section of Irish Members had brought the House into this difficulty, he meant no offence to the Members from Ireland who were sitting near him, and who, however they might differ from him in opinion, had no reason to doubt his love of fair play. When Mr. Smith O'Brien was to be expelled from the House, Lord Inchiquin, his brother, came and sat by him (Mr. Newdegate). Lord Inchiquin and his brother were now both dead, so he felt he was justified in relating this incident; but Lord Inchiquin said—"I come to sit next you, Newdegate, because I know you will see fair play." These words had left a deep impression on him (Mr. Newdegate). He was afraid that the House was on the verge of giving up the system which had secured fair play, of changing the character of the discipline of the House, and, by doing that, of changing the character of the House itself. That was what he dreaded. Whence had these disturbances arisen? Whence came this rebellion—for he must call it a rebellion—with the representation of which they had had to contend. ["Oh, oh!"] Surely it was a rebellion, when in February, 1881, 36 Members of the House refused to obey the authority of the Speaker in the maintenance of order in the House. That was a rebellion, he repeated—a rebellion which those Members had declared to be an Irish national rebellion, the representation of which those Members had declared that they had imported into that House. He had heard it said that such excesses would never be repeated; he had little or no confidence in these assurances. He put it to the House, what would the Members for England and Scotland have said to anyone who proposed to extend to either or both of these countries the provisions of the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act? Would they not have found a voice to remonstrate and protest against such an iniquitous, such a dangerous proposal? This drumhead court martial system of imposing penalties was introduced into the House solely to meet the difficulties which the Irish Members, to whom he had adverted, had created; and was it reasonable or just to supersede the Common Law of the ancient usages of this House, which represents the whole of the United Kingdom because they had to deal with a rebellion, he did not speak of it with contempt, which had prevailed only in one section, one province of the United Kingdom; was it right to adopt Rules, the object of which was to change the character of the ancient usages and discipline of the whole House because they had to deal with an exclusively Irish difficulty? They had not done so in their legislation. Why, then, should they do so in their internal discipline? Their Predecessors in the House had respected the dignity of the House not from merely coxcombical feeling or vanity, but because they knew that if the House did not maintain the dignity of its Procedure, forming, as it did, one branch of the highest Court known within the United Kingdom, it could not permanently sustain the free but just exercise of its privileges and authority. He contended, then, that this drumhead court martial system of inflicting heavy penalties without notice for words spoken perhaps at 3 o'clock in the morning and in an excited House was unworthy of the dignity and character of the House, especially as the penalties now proposed were to be sufficient to affect the rights of constituencies. The House had always respected its own dignity as a National Court, because that dignity gave force to its judgments and in treating an individual Member of the House they ought to remember the maxim, that, although each hon. Member was returned for a particular constituency, yet as soon as he entered the House he was Member of the United Kingdom, and in that respect they were all equal. He, for one, then, rebelled against the introduction of this drumhead court martial system. He felt it to be his duty to rebel; and he rebelled by proposing the Amendment now before the House, which, on the part of the House, was a recital and summary of the system and practice under the ancient usages of the House in the penal treatment of its Members. He asked the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to this Amendment on the ground that its object was not to invalidate the action which the right hon. Gentleman proposed, but to give it greater force by maintaining the dignity of the House in action. He would read a passage from Hatsell's Precedents, to show how former Houses had acted in the matter of imposing penalties. It was as follows:— When any person is brought to the bar, as a delinquent, to receive judgment of commitment, or any other punishment, or to be discharged out of custody, the Mace must be at the bar, and till the Standing Order of 1772, such person must, of course, have received the Orders of the House upon his knees. The alteration made by that Order was adopted upon the humanity of the House, which often has occasion to inflict punishment on persons, who would be more sensibly affected by this ignominious manner of receiving their sentence than by the severest species of penalty the House can impose. On the 17th and 18th of May, 1614, this Rule is dispensed with in favour of Mr. Martyn, who was reprimanded for an improper speech he had made at the bar, as counsel in a cause; he had been a Member in a former Parliament. He (Mr. Newdegate) had cited this case, in order to show the House that their Predecessors, who had created and maintained the great position and authority of the House, not merely as a part of the Legislature, but as a part of the highest Court of the Realm, felt deeply the necessity of imposing penalties especially for attacks on the House itself, whether from without or from within, in a manner that was becoming the dignity and the authority of the House when enforcing the penalties they had a right to impose. Thanking the House cordially for permitting him thus to explain his long Amendment, which he had hoped was not only long enough, but clear enough to explain itself to every Member who was at all acquainted with the ancient practice and discipline of Parliament, he begged to move it as it stood in his name.

Amendment proposed, In line 8, after the word "House," to insert the words "if such Question, thus put by Mr. Speaker, shall be decided by the House in the affirmative, the suspension of such Member shall continue until the Home has further considered it; and Mr. Speaker shall, immediately after such Question has been decided in the affirmative, cause a Notice to be placed on the Notice Paper, to the effect, that at the nex Sitting of the House but one, before any other business is taken, Mr. Speaker will put a Question to the House, as to whether such Member be relieved from such suspension, or whether such suspension shall be continued for a further time, or whether any other judgment of the House with respect to such Member shall bo pronounced."—(Mr. Newdegate.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he had great sympathy with the hon. Member's fidelity to Constitutional principles, with the sincerity with which he entertained those principles, and the candour and fairness which he manifested on many occasions. The hon. Member's regard for those principles had earned him respect in all quarters of the House for the championship of liberty, as he understood it. He (Mr. Gladstone) was no idolater of any of the restraints on their proceedings which had been introduced from time to time during the last 50 years; and he should be happy if they could go back to the Rules of the House as they were when he entered it in 1832. But it had been all along a choice of evils. They had been compelled either to introduce restraints on the liberty which then prevailed, or else to abandon the idea of performing their duty to the country. That was really the key to the proposals which were now made. The objections to the Amendment were insurmountable; it would in itself provide a new instrument of Obstruction more powerful than any the House had at present to contend with. After the suspension was passed, the suspension itself would become a most formidable menace to the carrying on of the Business of the House; because the House was to be involved in a discussion which, in spite of the limitations in the Amendment as to the number of their speakers and the length of their speeches, would occupy two hours and a quarter, and probably longer, from the impossibility of limiting the number of Amendments when the question was opened, so that the House—if in any case it would be so imprudent as to suspend a Member—would in this way itself pay a penalty far more severe than anything proposed to be inflicted upon any offending Member. He did not see how, under the Amendment, a reconsideration of the whole question might not take place which would not be subject to the limitations proposed for the first consideration.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

asked whether the Premier intended to adhere tenaciously to the scale of penalties laid down in the Resolution? He ventured to hope the Prime Minister would devise some method by which the constituency should not be punished as well as the offending Member.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he was pleased to hear the well-deserved compliment which the Prime Minister had paid to his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), which had found an echo in every quarter of the House. At the same time, although he quite sympathized with his hon. Friend in the wish to diminish some of the penalties proposed by the Resolution of the Government, he found himself unable to support the Amendment, in view of the inconveniences arising from it which had been pointed out by the Prime Minister.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GORST

moved to insert the words— Provided, That, if more than one Member is named in such Resolution, Amendments to omit the name of any such Member shall be allowed. He desired that the House should have the opportunity, when several Members were suspended, of distinguishing between those who were guilty and those who were innocent. In the early part of the Session, when several Members were suspended together, a right hon. and gallant Friend of his (Sir John Hay) desired to move the omission of the name of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum), believing, as many other hon. Members believed, that that hon. Member was not concerned in the Obstruction for which his fellow-Members had been suspended. No Motion, however, to that effect was allowed; and his right hon. and gallant Friend was obliged, in his perplexity, to leave the House without voting. When this Rule was proposed by the late Goverment it applied to a single Member, and not to several Members at a time, and the Proviso now submitted was not then necessary; but now that it applied to more than one Member the proposed safeguard seemed only reasonable.

Amendment proposed, In line 8, after the word "House," to insert the words "Provided, That, if more than one Member is named in such Resolution, Amendments to omit the name of any of such Members shall be allowed."—(Mr. Gorst.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he thought it was quite possible to try this question fairly with reference to the past. The hon. and learned Gentleman founded his argument for the Amendment on the allegation of a case that actually happened in which injustice, as the hon. and learned Member thought, was done, because there was not such a power as he now proposed to give. A large number of Members were proscribed, and there was a great difference of opinion in the House as to the relative positions in which the persons Named in that list might be supposed to stand. His answer was that Her Majesty's Government had engaged themselves to provide against the recurrence of such a case. They had engaged to propose words by which constructive or collective Obstruction, in the sense of Obstruction extending over a long period, should be excluded from the operation of the Resolution. Therefore, the argument of the hon. and learned Member on the case of last year fell to the ground. The hon. and learned Member modestly proposed that when Members had been collectively Named there should be a power of moving Amendments. Last year it was deemed to be of the utmost importance by the Government and by nine-tenths of the House of Commons' that a certain measure should be passed; and it was found impossible, under the ordinary Rules, to pass it. Rules of Urgency were accordingly devised, and they were to be debated on a particular night. On that night a body of about 34 Gentlemen opposed them resolutely by availing themselves of all the Forms of the House for what they, no doubt, considered imperative reasons. Twenty-seven of them involved themselves in a common act, and were brought into common notice by the Speaker and disposed of by a single vote. In consequence of that single vote the House was able—he thought before 10 o'clock—to get to the Rules of Urgency and to dispose of them, and to bring into operation a system under which, by restraint of individual Members, a Bill of two pages was disposed of in 16 further nights. What would have happened if the present Amendment had been in force? In the case of every one of those 27 Members, a separate Amendment would have been moved to omit his name. Thus, there would have been 27 divisions on 27 different names. Those divisions would have occupied, on the average, at least a quarter of an hour each. Supposing, therefore, that the operation began at 9 o'clock, the House at 4 o'clock in the morning would have found itself ready to proceed with the consideration of the Rules of Urgency. If the House were to retain some authority, it must be on its guard against proposals of this kind, however plausible they might be. Rather than adopt this Amendment, it would be far better to give up trying to deal with collective Obstruction altogether. Supposing that half-a-dozen Members united in violent interruptions and disorderly interruptions to the proceedings of the House, why was the House to be put to the torture and to the loss of public time by dividing on the name of each Member. Constructive Obstruction, going back over the past, the Government were willing and oven anxious to abandon; but they were desirous of saving the time of the House, and this they would be unable to do if the Amendment were passed.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he objected to a great deal that had fallen from the Prime Minister, because whatever their desire to hasten Business, there was one thing they ought to put before everything, and that was—they ought to be just. If they were unjust, the result would be to cause angry feelings to arise, which would tend to anything rather than the despatch of Business. The Speaker might accidentally be in error in regard to some of the Members he had Named, and why should not the House have the power of saying so? If such a power were not given, why should any appeal be given to the House at all from the decision of the Speaker. In the case suggested of a disturbance in the House, he might not see who was engaged in it, and might Name someone who had nothing to do with the disturbance. He would not commit a mistake as to the fact of the disturbance; but he might be in error as to whether A, B, and C took part in it. The Chairman, who did not occupy so elevated a position as the Speaker, was still more liable to make a mistake of that kind. Then, as to the arguments of the Prime Minister that it would take too much time to divide the House, it would take no more time than to divide upon the nomination of a Committee. If an hon. Member objected to a particular name on a Committee he was at liberty to divide the House upon it. It was surely far safer for the House to be at the trouble of going to a division than to allow a man to remain under an unjust accusation. For these reasons, he should vote for the Amendment.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he thought the whole fallacy lay in supposing that upon the occasion of the suspension of a Member the House would be in the same calm state as it was at present. It was quite possible for the Chairman, after having been goaded into action by the comments of the newspapers, to make a sudden display of vigour by rushing into violent extremities and suspend a Member even for voting. On the former occasion so much referred to, when he was about to vote in one of the divisions, a communication reached him from the Table asking him whether he wished to be suspended; and he believed that he would have been suspended by the present Chairman for voting had he not first taken the precaution of consulting the late Chairman (Mr. Raikes) in the Lobby as to whether he could be suspended merely for voting, when the right hon. Member advised him that it would be perfectly safe for him to vote, and had he not communicated that opinion to the authorities of the House. He believed himself that under no circumstances whatever could a Member be suspended for voting. The House ought to be very careful how it passed a Rule of this kind, for to suspend a Member who was innocent of Obstruction would be a very serious matter.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he thought that, having regard to the language of the Rule, it must mean one Member; for if it had meant more than one it would have said "Member or Members." They ought, however, to have a distinct understanding from the Government whether, under this Standing Order, more than one Member could be suspended at a time by the decision of the Speaker or Chairman, or whether under it there could be a recurrence of what took place last Session, when the hon. Member for Kilkenny was suspended with others at the particular moment that he happened to be in a railway train travelling to Ireland. If that was the case, he should vote for the Amendment. If, on the other hand, the Rule meant the suspension of an individual Member, he would be satisfied, and would not go into the Lobby against the Government.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, it was sometimes a difficult matter for the Chair to distinguish between positive Obstruction and mere noise, and. this might lead to Members being suspended by mistake. He thought, therefore, there ought to be some means of reviewing the decision of the Chair as to any particular Member or Members affected by it. He was very averse to collective suspension being put in force under this Rule, and he thought the expenditure of a little time to remedy any injustice that might arise from a suspension of that kind ought to be allowed.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) had cast a ghastly glare on the proceedings connected with the passing of the Coercion Bill through the House, and had, moreover, afforded a remarkable argument in favour of the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend. Many accusations had been made against the present Chairman of Committees; but if the charge made by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway was correct, he defied anyone to point to anything more serious than this. Surely the Prime Minister, if he heard these charges, could not sit still under them.

MR. GLADSTONE

I did not catch what the hon. and gallant Member said.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, then he would repeat it. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway had stated that he had consulted his right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes) as to whether he could be suspended for voting. The right hon. Gentleman informed him that he believed he would be perfectly safe. But the hon. and gallant Member went on to say that, even under those circumstances, if he had not fortified himself by the opinion of Mr. Raikes and communicated with the authorities of the House he would have been suspended; and he made the further startling statement that he received a communication from the Chair to know whether he wished to be suspended. [An hon. MEMBER: From the Table.] Well, from the Table was from the Chair. They knew that those who sat at the Table were the advisers of the Chairman, and were the channels of communication between the Chairman and Members of the House. And positively that was the way in which the present Chairman of Committees interpreted the Rule of the right hon. Member for North Devon; he sent messages to hon. Members to know whether they wished to be suspended. Now, he wanted to know why the Chairman of Committees, in face of the serious criticisms passed on his actions by almost every independent Member, did not come forward in the House and explain his conduct instead of hovering about the Lobby? Was it that the Prime Minister had forbidden him to speak? If, after that statement of the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Gal way, the Chairman of Committees did not come to the Table and flatly deny that he had ever made such a communication, he had proved himself totally incapacitated and unfit to discharge with impartiality and fair play the high duties intrusted to him; and if the Chairman persistently abstained from meeting those charges, he defied the House and the Government, with any appearance of justice or reason, to refuse to accede to the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend.

MR. DODSON

said, he had heard with considerable astonishment and no little regret the tone and language in which the noble Lord had thought fit to reflect on the conduct of the Chairman of Committees of Ways and Means, not on the strength of anything which the noble Lord knew himself, but of something which he had heard from someone else.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

It was based on a statement made in this House.

MR. DODSON

repeated, that it was not founded on anything known to the noble Lord himself, but on what he had heard from someone else; and the story had probably lost nothing in intensity in its repetition by the noble Lord. The Prime Minister had already pointed out that the danger apprehended by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) would not occur, because the Resolution, as amended and proposed to be amended, did not apply to that which was understood as constructive Obstruction, but only to an act committed at the time and immediately noticed by the Speaker, whether it was committed by one Member or by several Members. The case mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Gal way (Colonel Nolan) could not possibly arise under the Rule as amended or proposed to be amended. It was said that the Speaker or Chairman might make a mistake as to the action of a Member or a certain number of Members; and, therefore, there ought to be a power of moving Amendments to the Naming of more than one Member. Now, the occupant of the Chair was better placed for seeing and observing than the vast majority of Members in the House could be, because he occupied a central position. But the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham would go to render the proposed Rule absolutely nugatory, if it was to apply at all to collective action. It was asked what kind of collective action could there be by which an act contrary to the Rules was committed jointly by several Members present together. Now, the refusal of a certain number of Members to leave the House and take part in a division would be an act coming within the Rule. Again, if several Members rose tumultuously in their places and interrupted the Business by disorderly words or exclamations, that would come under the amended Rule. Under the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham there might not only be a division on each name, but, as he read it, there might also be a debate. ["No!"] The hon. and learned Member shook his head; but there were no words in his Amendment which would exclude a debate and a division on each name, and its effect would be to render the Rule, as far as collective action went, entirely nugatory.

MR. PARNELL

said, he was not easy in his mind as to the effect of the Rule even when altered in the way proposed by the Prime Minister. Further on he should be very glad to know the ruling of the Chair as to whether Members rising in their places for the purpose of supporting the claim for a division upon what might be considered a dilatory Motion could be in any case held to be guilty of an act of Obstruction, either as regarded the particular act of so rising in their places, or as regarded any previous act of theirs which might be taken in connection with it. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) had informed the House that he only escaped suspension on a certain night because he was able to communicate to the Chair the opinion of a Gentleman who had been a high authority (Mr. Raikes), and that he had every reason to believe that if the Chair had not been fortified, or, at all events, prevented by the communication of that opinion, he would have been suspended on the occasion in question because he had taken part in a particular division, though not in the debate. For himself, looking to the fact that there was only one occasion—a very remarkable occasion—when, under very exceptional circumstances, the Government would have desired to use that Rule to suspend a batch of Members, and that they now proposed so largely to extend the period of suspension, and remembering also that they had a number of new Rules to which the Government attached great value, he thought it might be better to dispense altogether with the power of suspending Members collectively. If once the power of suspending large numbers of men was granted, that power might easily be abused. Were Members who rose in their seats to demand a division on a Motion relative to the suspension of an Obstructive Member, or who voted on the Motion, to be guilty of Obstruction? If the Government would give up their claim to suspend Members collectively, there would be no risk; and, in his opinion, it would have been better to have occupied the time that the separate divisions would have taken on that well-known occasion than to have strained the existing Rule, and given rise to all the debate that had subsequently taken place upon it.

MR. COURTNEY

said, that, with reference to the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway, as he understood it, it came to this. The hon. and gallant Member was afraid on a certain occasion that if he voted he would be suspended, and, being in doubt, he got a communication in the Lobby.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

From the Table.

MR. COURTNEY

In the Lobby.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

It came from the Table.

MR. COURTNEY

The hon. and gallant Member can correct me. He said he received a communication in the Lobby—[Cries of "Table!"]—from the Table from someone, I do not know who— —

COLONEL NOLAN

What I said was that I got a communication from the Table. I have no objection to give the name; but I think it is unnecessary. A Clerk at the Table came up to me in the Lobby—there was nothing in it of the nature of a private interview—and spoke to me, and the impression left on my mind was that if I gave that vote I should be suspended.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he was quite willing to accept the correction for what it was worth. It did not matter in the least. The important point was this. The noble Lord said the Chairman communicated the opinion to the hon. Member—

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I said the communication came through the ordinary channels of communication between the Chair and hon. Members.

MR. COURTNEY

said, that, whatever the importance of the matter was, his right hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Lyon Playfair)—who was in the House in the early part of the evening—not being in a good state of health, had left the House an hour and a-half since, knowing nothing about this matter being brought up; but, as a matter of course, his attention would be directed to it, and at the earliest opportunity he would explain what share he had had in such an extraordinary transaction. For the present, he appealed to the House to regard this as a story to be received with caution; he did not mean to say anything of an unpleasant character to the hon. and gallant Member until the Chairman of Committees had made his statement. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had stated a good many inconveniences which would result from, the Rule; but he had fairly admitted there were some arguments in its favour. In his own opinion, the reasons which had been adduced against the Speaker or the Chairman having the right to Name any number of Members collectively were not sufficient to justify the House in refusing to accord the power.

MR. R. N. FOWLER,

as one who formed one of the majority on the occasion to which reference had been made, when a number of hon. Members had been suspended, wished to state that he was present all night, and believed at the time that the Chairman took the proper course. He believed that was also the feeling of nearly all hon. Members present on the occasion.

MR. RYLANDS

felt it was inconvenient to pursue this matter further in the absence of the Chairman of Committees. With regard to the Amendment, he thought it was objectionable. He appealed to the Government to give up the power of Naming Members collectively. The exercise of the power would lead to great inconvenience. If six or eight Members were Named, and one were included whom an hon. Member believed to be innocent, he ought to vote in favour of permitting all to escape rather than that one innocent man should be punished. It would be turning a judicial act of the House into a farce if the House were to be called upon to decide upon a collective number of Members, some of whom a Member called upon to vote believed to be innocent, and some guilty.

MR. W. H. SMITH

joined in the appeal of the hon. Member for Burnley. On behalf of the framers of the Rule of 18S0, he might say that it never was intended to be applied collectively. Many of them, no doubt, supported the application of the Rule when it was so applied; but they did so because they felt it their duty to support the Chair in the maintenance of order. If it was necessary that there should be the power of Naming Members collectively, it ought to be in the power of the House to object to the suspension of an individual Member, who, in their opinion, ought not to be punished. No doubt the Speaker or Chairman had a far better means of judging of the action of hon. Members than hon. Gentlemen in other parts of the House; but no one could deny that the Speaker or Chairman was, like others, liable to be mistaken.

MR. GLADSTONE

rose to point out what would be the convenient course to pursue. The Government were of opinion, and the House would be of opinion, that the fair question to raise was the ques- tion whether there should be collective action or not. It was undeniable that under the Amendment not only would there be, or might be, an Amendment upon every name, but a debate on every Amendment, and they would be involved in confusion worse confounded. He had upon the Paper a Notice of the following Proviso, which be intended to move later on:— Provided, That not more than one Member shall he named at the same time, unless several Members, present together, have jointly committed an act for which they are named. It would be open to any hon. Member to move that the words from "useless" to the end of that Proviso be omitted. If this were done the question of whether there should be collective action might be raised, and the present discussion could terminate.

MR. O'DONNELL

remarked, that the whole of the Government argument was in favour of saving the time of the House at the expense of justice to individual Members, As an Irish Member he was not very much afraid of the collective suspension, for he believed there might be many circumstances in the history of Ireland when one of the best things that could possibly happen for the Irish national cause would be for the whole of the Irish National Party to be expelled from the House en bloc. He thought that the question of the suspension of Members collectively could only be properly investigated by a Committee. He himself had been wrongfully suspended for simply calling attention to the disturbance going on on the other side of the House. If that were so, how much greater was the risk of improper suspension where that suspension was collective?

MR. GREGORY

said, he felt that there was great force in what had been urged in respect of the individual Naming of Members; and he felt considerable difficulty in regard to the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), because it appeared to him that it was a contradiction in terms of what had already been done. They had already passed that part of the Standing Order which declared that no Amendment, Adjournment, or Debate should be allowed; and they were now asked to insert a Proviso which, was in express contradiction to that, because it would allow a debate on the Naming of any Member declared to be guilty of an offence. Therefore, if the Amendment were passed, it would be necessary to amend the preceding part of the Standing Order in that respect. It appeared to him that, as the Amendment stood, a debate might be raised upon the name of every individual Member. He quite concurred in what had been said as to the propriety of the House having an opportunity of carrying to a division the case of an individual Member if it was thought that a mistake had been made. He thought that was a proper right to reserve for the House; but he also thought that it would be a source of great inconvenience if any debate were to be allowed upon a Motion of that kind, and they ought carefully to guard against anything which would permit a discussion to be raised in that respect. "What he would suggest to his hon. and learned Friend was that he should adopt the suggestion of the Prime Minister and reserve the Amendment for a future part of the Resolution. He was not quite sure that the discussion would come on regularly, as the Prime Minister had suggested, upon his own Resolution; but he thought it would be better to reserve it until they reached the end of the Resolution. It would then be regular to move, after passing a Resolution requiring the Presiding Authority to Name Members seriatim, that the decision might be challenged on each, name without discussion or debate. That would be analogous to what happened in the case of the nomination of Select Committees. Such an alteration of the Resolution would prevent anything in the nature of undue discussion or undue delay; and he hoped the suggestion he threw out would meet the assent of his hon. and learned Friend.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

said, that all the House needed in that discussion was some clear definition from the Government of the difference between the terms "constructive Obstruction" and "collective Obstruction." Constructive Obstruction, in the language of the Prime Minister, was the kind of Obstruction dealt with by the Chairman of Committees in the case which had been referred to that evening; whereas collective Obstruction was a new kind of Obstruction proposed to be dealt with by this Rule. But the only definition yet given by the Prime Minister of collective Obstruction was that it was to be a "common act committed in the presence of the House." That was precisely the reason on which the Chairman of Committees and the Ministry based their defence of the suspension of the 23 Members early in this Session, and it was very important that the matter should be elucidated by Her Majesty's Government. With regard to the suggestions which had fallen from the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), in criticizing the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), he certainly could not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the suspension of a Member was not a fitting subject for debate. Suspension was now proposed to be a much more serious affair than it had ever been before; and, having regard to the effect of this suspension upon Members themselves, and also upon the constituencies they represented, which might be for a week or a month, or even longer, deprived of representation, he thought there could not be a more fitting subject for debate by the House than a Motion for the suspension of a Member. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) that the better course would be for the Government to withdraw the collective proposition, and leave only the power of suspending Members individually, if, in the opinion of the House, they had committed the offence with which they were charged. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench on that side of the House (Sir R. Assheton Cross) very forcibly stated that there was one consideration even more important than the time of the House, and that was the claims of justice. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in that view, and he was of opinion that that was a point which required the consideration of the Government. The deposition of Members under the New Rules might be a very serious matter indeed; and the saving of a little time, which was the main reason given by the Prime Minister why Members should be suspended en masse, without debate or consideration, seemed to leave out of sight all the more important elements of the case. He should like to hear from the Government, before the House came to a decision upon the question, whether some attempt at least would be made to define the real difference between collective and obstructive opposition.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he had only one word to say with regard to the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory). He thought that it was a very pertinent suggestion indeed; but he thought his hon. Friend had omitted one thing when he said there should be no debate. There must be a debate in order to show why one man should not be suspended, and why another should. If there was collective action, and five or six hon. Members were to be suspended, and the House thought that one of those Members had been unjustly Named, surely it ought to be in the power of an hon. Member to state the reason why he thought such Member had not been properly Named. If no such opportunity were afforded, the Division Bell would ring, Members would come into the House from the Lobbies, the Government Whips would tell them that a Member had been Named by the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees, and they would have no opportunity of knowing why such particular Member had been singled out for suspension, and why another should not be suspended. He ventured to say that this question of collective action required far more consideration than it had hitherto received. The House was certainly not in a position, at this moment, to come to any decision upon the matter. The only decision they could come to was, whether the Government were prepared to withdraw that part of the Amendment which provided that there should not be collective action, but single action against Members individually. He believed there was not a single man in that House who would not agree that when an hon. Member offended against the ruling of the Speaker or of the Chairman of Committees he ought to be severely punished; but when they came to the question of collective action they ought to give a decision upon so momentous a question that should neither be hastily arrived at nor involve the alteration of the Rule before it had been long in operation. He would therefore appeal to the Government, even at the last moment, to reconsider their position. The House had now been engaged upon this question throughout the whole of yesterday and to-day; and he gathered that the general opinion of the House was in favour of continuing that which had been effectively tried before. It was certainly not the intention of the existing Rule that collective action should be taken; and the Rule as it was now framed had hitherto prevented, to a great extent, that Obstruction of which there had been so many and such loud complaints. He ventured to hope that the House would maintain the intention with which the Standing Order was first framed, and would decide upon dealing with Members individually instead of collectively.

MR. NEWDEGATE

expressed a hope that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) would not divide the House upon this question, and for this reason—that if he divided the House, the House would affirm the principle of collective punishment even before it had been proposed by the Government. Now, what was the idea of collective punishment? For his own part, he had a great aversion to collective punishment. He did not know how they managed in the Birmingham Caucus, but in North Warwickshire they were apt to treat individuals according to their merits; and he thought it was not too much to state, even for Members of that House who represented the people of the United Kingdom, that they ought to be treated, and treat each other, according to their individual merits or demerits, and that they should not be treated collectively as if they were hodfuls or spadefuls of criminal mortar. He thought they ought to enjoy the privilege of limited liability.

MR. WARTON

wished to point out to the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) that it seemed to him the principle of constructive Obstruction had gone, because the words which had been used by the Government upon the proposition of the right hon. and gallant Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Sir John Hay) had immediately given the death-blow to constructive Obstruction. In regard to collective Obstruction, ho thought there was great force in the recommendations which had been made by several hon. Members. He did not entirely agree with the Proviso of the Prime Minister; but he did think that that Proviso, if modified in the manner proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), would effect what the House desired. He hoped the hon. and learned Member would withdraw the Amendment for the present, because he thought it would be far better to discuss it upon the proposition of the Government when they came to line 22 of the Standing Order.

BARON HENRY DE WORMS

said, the matter was one of so serious a nature that at that late hour he thought they ought to adjourn the debate in order that the question might be further considered. The present Resolution was being obtained very much in the same manner as the 1st Resolution. The Government were anxious to keep in their hands the power of suspending Members collectively, in order that they might be able to hold it in terrorem over the heads of a small minority, in the same manner as they introduced the 1st Rule of the clôture to enable them to enforce their will over a larger minority. No argument had been adduced by the Government that in any way tended to elucidate the mode in which they contemplated the application of the Resolution; and, under these circumstances, without going into detail upon the question, which had already been ventilated thoroughly and at some length on the Conservative side of the House, he would move the adjournment of the debate, in order to give the Government an opportunity of reconsidering the matter, and of urging any arguments they might have to put forward in support of their views.

MR. BIGGAR

seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Baron Henry de Worms.)

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he had endeavoured last night to make it perfectly clear to the House that the Government had abandoned all idea of setting up in the future any doctrine of constructive Obstruction, and he felt that he had been successful in that endeavour. He certainly regarded the action of the hon. Member who had just sat down, in moving the adjournment of the debate, as some evidence of constructive Obstruction to the progress of Business, which might, under other circum- stances, have been brought before the House. He failed to understand upon what special ground the hon. Member asked for further delay. What was the Question before the House? No doubt there were two issues of considerable importance; one was whether they would abandon altogether all idea of constructive Obstruction, although retaining in the Standing Order the power of dealing with collective Obstruction; and the second question was, whether collective Obstruction or a collective offence against the Standing Order, was to be retained in the Order, and the penalties applied individually by a separate division in each case. No doubt those were questions of very considerable importance; but what the Government were arguing now was that they should be taken in their proper place. It was recently suggested by the Prime Minister, and the suggestion was accepted by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), that the only convenient way of raising this important question would be to allow the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) to be withdrawn, and to take the first question, whether there should be any collective offence at all, when they came to line 22 of the Resolution. If the House saw fit to adopt the proposal of the Prime Minister, and to retain the idea of a collective offence, then the further question would be raised whether or not there should be a separate division on each name. He failed to understand how the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry de Worms) could reasonably ask for further delay; and it certainly seemed to him that there could be no excuse for proposing to the House the postponement of the further progress of the Resolution.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, his hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry de Worms) had moved the adjournment of the House on an extremely intelligible principle—namely, for the purpose of resisting, and he (Lord Randolph Churchill) hoped of resisting successfully, for the third or fourth time, these continued attempts on the part of the Government to mystify the House of Commons on these points. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had proposed an Amendment which directly raised the question of collective suspen- sion. ["Order—"] He believed that he was perfectly in Order in answering the remarks of the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), who had called in question the position taken up by several Members of the House. Her Majesty's Government refused to tell the House what was in their minds in regard to their own Amendment, which was to be proposed by the Prime Minister later on; and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) asked the Government to proceed with the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) without having the slightest knowledge of what the intentions of the Government were, or what the Government were likely to do. Now, he ventured to say that that was altogether an extravagant demand, and he did not think the House ought to agree to it. The Motion of his hon. Friend was intended as a protest against the continued refusal on the part of the Government, on a Rule of this kind, to take the House of Commons as a body into their confidence, and tell them exactly what their intentions were. ["Order—"] When he was out of Order, he had no doubt the Speaker would remind him of the fact. He was dealing directly with the answer of the right hon. Member for Birmingham to the Motion of his hon. Friend (Baron Henry de Worms). He also wished to urge in support of the Motion for Adjournment that, in consequence of the extraordinary disclosure made that night by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), the House was not really in a position to come to a decision on the point now raised by his hon. and learned Friend until they should have heard an explanation, if such could be given, by the Chairman of Committees. On these two grounds—namely, the refusal of the Government to state their intentions, notwithstanding the numerous appeals which had been made to them, and the absence of any explanation from the Chairman of Committees, he should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry de Worms) for the adjournment of the debate.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the noble Lord was so habitually rash and reckless in the statements and charges he made that he would take no notice whatever of the imputation that the Government were continually trying to mystify the House. The noble Lord, in making such charges, appeared to aim at establishing for himself the reputation of a privileged person, and he should not attempt to compete with the noble Lord in that respect. He would therefore pass by all imputations of that kind. But the noble Lord said that they ought to adjourn the debate, because the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees was not present. Now, the matter with respect to the Chairman of Committees was that he had been directly or indirectly, seriously or partially, accused with respect to his conduct in the Chair; but that was a matter which could not possibly affect the Resolution or the conduct of the House, if they should accede to the proposal to shut out entirely the idea of constructive Obstruction; and the reason given by the noble Lord was not applicable to the matter. The noble Lord made another great charge against the Government. He said that they would not take the House into their confidence about the Amendment which they intended to propose at the close of the Resolution. The noble Lord talked about mystifying the House, because the Government would not, on one Amendment to the Standing Order, discuss every other Amendment likely to be brought forward, and because they would not consent to discuss matters that were altogether irrelevant. He (Mr. Gladstone) had stated as plainly as possible upon the question of constructive Obstruction that although it was a question upon which Her Majesty's Government had an opinion, they had no idea of dealing with it in the Resolution. He did not think that it was by penal Resolutions that a matter of that kind could be dealt with satisfactorily. He was no believer in penal Resolutions, but it was to other means he looked for vindicating the power of the House. Still it was the opinion of the Government that the Resolution was necessary, and they were prepared to state their opinions and abide by the judgment of the House. At any rate, do not let the House adopt this Amendment, which provided a plan which, whether in regard to single Obstruction or collective Obstruction, they ought not to adopt, because it would only make the matter a good deal worse than either of the two plans before the House. All they said was, let the House discuss the question apart from collateral issues which introduced elements of confusion and indirectly affected the question of constructive Obstruction. Let them, by all means, proceed to discuss the question at once, and not be obstructed by the Motion for Adjournment which had been moved by the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry de Worms).

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, the House was occupied for some time last night in discussing the question whether constructive Obstruction should be recognized and punished or not. After the debate had gone on for some time, and the feeling of the House was manifest against that proposition, Her Majesty's Government wisely and properly gave way. The result was that constructive Obstruction ceased to be a matter for consideration. They had now been engaged for a long time that evening upon the question of collective Obstruction; and he was very sanguine indeed that if they did not precipitate matters, if they did not excite the two sides of the House to a serious conflict, they would before very long find that collective Obstruction would follow the fate of constructive Obstruction. He was very anxious, therefore, that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) should withdraw his Amendment, which he thought his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had conclusively shown was only calculated to prejudice that full and free and amicable discussion upon collective Obstruction which it was desirable they should enter upon. He thought there could be no doubt that if they adopted the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham they would really prejudge the case. He, therefore, ventured to appeal to his hon. and learned Friend to take that stumbling-block out of their path in order that they might come to the consideration of the real question at issue. Then his hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms) had moved the adjournment of the debate. He feared that such a Motion would not tend to that calm and judicial consideration of the question which was so desirable; and, therefore, he would simply suggest to his hon. Friend that the House would be a great gainer if he were to withdraw his Motion.

MR. GORST

said, he was afraid that the Speaker would not allow to him the same indulgence which he had accorded to the Leaders on both Benches, of discussing the merits of his Amendment on the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. He would, therefore, modestly confine himself to the Question before the House—namely, the question of the adjournment of the debate; and he would state why he thought the adjournment of the debate would be extremely convenient. If they adjourned the debate, when the House met tomorrow, it was possible that Her Majesty's Government might have made up their minds whether they would or would not adhere to collective Obstruction. He had been asked in the course of the evening to withdraw his Amendment, on the ground that the Government were going to give way. His answer to that was that, when they did give way, then he would withdraw his Amendment. He thought if they had an adjournment of the debate, so that when the House met again to-morrow the Government would be in a position to announce whether they adhered to collective Obstruction or not, there would be no difficulty in knowing what to do with the. Amendment, because if the Government gave up collective Obstruction to-morrow he would at once withdraw the Amendment; whereas, if, on the other hand, when the House met to-morrow, the Government still adhered to their proposal in regard to collective Obstruction, then, to use the language of his right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), it would be necessary in the interests of justice, inconvenient as it might be, that his Amendment should be submitted to the House. Upon these grounds, it seemed to him very desirable that they should have an adjournment, so that when they met to-morrow they might know exactly what the intentions of the Government were.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 132: Majority 108.—(Div. List, No.388.)

Original Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 103: Majority 48.—(Div. List, No. 389.)

MR. GLADSTONE

said, with regard to the important question of penalties which they were now approaching, that although he did not expect the House to give judgment on the whole question that night, he hoped they would be able to come to a conclusion on the first Amendment he should move, which would merely effect an alteration in the structure of the Standing Order, without committing hon. Members to any subsequent alteration. While upon this subject he thought it would be for the convenience of the House that he should state what were the opinions of Her Majesty's Government in connection with it. On making the first preliminary Motion he said that, in their opinion, taking the Rule as it stood, it was of vital consequence, in order to make it consistent and effective, that they should strengthen the penalties employed, and that there was a total absence of equality between the machinery put in action and the trouble entailed upon the House by the hon. Member who was the object of it, he having to suffer a few hours' suspension, and the House having to go through the confusion consequent upon the interruption of its proceedings. He said also that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, there should be an ascending scale of penalties. Those were the two fundamental propositions he had laid down. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said—"See how effective this Rule has really been, for no one has ever committed a third offence." But, for his part, he used that fact in a sense exactly the reverse of its application by the right hon. Gentleman. The third offence did entail a substantive and sensible punishment, and in that sense it might be said that this portion of the Rule had been effective, because Members had avoided coming within it. But the punishment of going home an hour or two earlier than usual was no punishment at all; and, accordingly, it was found that the first offence was committed frequently, and the second by no means rarely. Her Majesty's Government therefore thought it right to propose the introduction of a substantial punishment for the first offence. He would say nothing in regard to collective Obstruction, which had virtually passed from the view of the House. They had secured that whatever was done should be done upon the committal of the offence. But for the Obstruction which the House should deem to be a fit subject of punishment, the Government contended that there ought to be a substantive punishment, which would produce its effect, and they did not think that less than a week could be named as fulfilling that idea. With regard to the second and third offences, he thought it would probably meet the judgment of the House if they proposed a fortnight's suspension for the former, and for the latter a suspension of one month.

Amendment proposed, in line 8, to leave out the words "during the remainder of that day's sitting."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he accepted the proposed amendment of the Standing Order on the understanding that it involved a mere matter of drafting. As far as he was personally concerned, he agreed that it was better that all these punishments should proceed upon a scale; and he expressed his great gratification that the Government had taken into their consideration the recommendations made a few days ago, and modified the scale of penalties, although he desired to reserve any further opinion until the subject of the wording of the Rule was brought forward. He wished to point out that the Prime Minister had failed to draw a correct inference from an argument used by him on a former occasion, with reference to the third offence, which it was his intention to show had not been committed, notwithstanding the mildness of the penalty which it entailed.

MR. ONSLOW

asked what was the real meaning of the term "service of the House?" An hon. Member, sitting on a Committee upstairs, might say on a Wednesday, when the House met at 12—"Come down, and at 2 o'clock be ruled by Mr. Speaker to have obstructed the Business of the House, and suspended from that time from the service of the House." But it might be that the Committee upstairs wanted his vote, and that without him a quorum could not be formed, as a consequence of which important Business might fall through. Therefore, he asked whether the suspension of a Member from the service of the House included his suspension also from service on Committee upstairs? If he were allowed to vote on such Committee, it appeared to him anomalous that he should not also be allowed to record his vote downstairs.

MR. SPEAKER

I apprehend that the suspension of a Member from the service of the House would also include his suspension from service on Committee.

MR. SEXTON

regarded the Amendment as something more than a mere matter of construction of the Rule. It was the first of a series of Amendments involving an increase of penalties; however, in view of the statement of the Prime Minister, he did not propose to offer any objection.

MR. WARTON

considered the announcement of the Prime Minister a fair and just one, but, at the same time, reserved to himself the right of future judgment in this matter.

Question put, and negatived.

Words omitted.

Further Consideration of the Standing Order (Order in Debate) 28 February 1880, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.