HC Deb 22 November 1882 vol 274 cc1859-64
MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

Sir, I trust the House will allow me to make an explanation with reference to an incident in the debate last night. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) has used very strong expressions about my continued absence for some time from the House during these discussions. That I have been absent is quite true; but I have been suffering from very severe illness, and I am only convalescent now. Yesterday I was in the House from 4 till 10. I did not sit on the Front Bench, but remained behind, where I could more conveniently rest. At 10 o'clock I felt very much exhausted, and, knowing that I could not take part either in the discussion or in the divisions, I went home. After my departure the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) stated that on some occasion he received a message from the Clerk of the House to the effect that if he should vote he would incur the risk of suspension. ["No!"] My source of information is the report in The Times this morning. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway assumed, and, I believe, asserted that the message on the occasion to which he referred was a message from the Chair. Now, I wish to state, in the most emphatic language that I can use, that I never heard of the incident until I read the hon. and gallant Member's speech in The Times this morning. It is not the practice of the Chair to send messages by the Clerks to any individual Members. They would not take such messages. If the Chairman has to communicate with any hon. Member, he always communicates by note, which is sent through the hands of a messenger. Therefore, I do not understand the story at all. I have no doubt that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway is under the impression that he received some communication from a Clerk at the Table. I cannot question his belief. It is not my duty to defend the Clerks at the Table; but knowing as I do the great ability with which they discharge the duties of their office, and their knowledge of the Rules of the House, I do not in the least comprehend the story. I can only say most emphatically that I had no participation in or knowledge of the matter. I cannot conceive any human being—much more anyone acquainted with the Rules of the House—who could by any possibility-look upon voting as in any degree an act of Obstruction. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock has censured me because I have not taken part in these discussions. Now, I have abstained from speaking with a set purpose, and I know, Sir, that you entirely approve my reserve. Hon. Members have a right to pass criticisms upon the conduct of the Chair; but we think that it would not be proper for the Chairman to engage in any general discussion containing criticisms upon his Office. I should, however, like to refer to a speech delivered last Thursday, during my enforced absence from the House. I should like to make another personal explanation with reference to that speech, the question involved being a question of fact and not an opinion. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) stated that on some occasion I was heard by someone in the Lobby to say that I would have called to Order or suspended—I do not exactly know which—the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) if he had not been a Member of such great influence and connected with The Times newspaper. I should like to assure the hon. Member for Birkenhead—I am quite certain that it is not necessary that I should assure the House—that there is not a particle of foundation for such a statement. I have nothing further to say except that, if I have not given a sufficiently emphatic denial to both stories, I should be very glad to find other words by which to express with still greater strength that there is not the smallest shred or atom of foundation for such statements.

COLONEL NOLAN

Sir, unfortunately the Chairman of Ways and Means was absent from the House last evening. I had only recently returned from Ireland, and I was not aware whether he was in or out of the House, and I think it right to point out that the incident referred to was only a portion of a short speech I made—perhaps one-fourth, at most, of the speech I made. I by no means brought forward the incident as a charge against anybody, but simply as an argument or illustration. The House last night went solely upon that portion of my speech, and the papers have reported nothing else. It is only fair that I should state this in order to show the House, and incidentally the public, how important this bears upon the incident, and how it was brought forward. There are portions of the speech of the Chairman of Ways and Means which I must correct, and which he said was based upon the report in The Times newspaper. I never said the Clerk at the Table, but I said a clerk. The right hon. Gentleman says I connected the message sent to me with the vote I was about to give. I did not connect it in that way. I did not connect it with the voting in my original statement; but the Secretary to the Treasury put me in rather a difficult position. In attempting to repeat what I had said he emphasized words which I had not emphasized. He fell into one or two mistakes, and I got up to correct him. I then said that the impression left in my mind at the time was that the message was connected with the vote I was about to give. Having made this qualification and explanation, let me remark how much more extraordinary and important the incident becomes. A Clerk at the Table—the third Clerk—comes to me officially—one paper says privately and unofficially—the other papers report what I did exactly say—namely, that it was clear to my mind it was official and could not possibly be construed into a private and unofficial action. I was standing in the Division Lobby, where the names were being taken. He walked up the whole length of the Lobby, and brought me, I did not say a message, but a communication from the Table, and we all know there are more advisers at the Table than the Chairman. The Clerk came up to me and asked me clearly whether I wished to get suspended or not. Now, I knew that since the first batch of suspensions I had done nothing except to vote. It may be that the Clerk wished to communicate to the Chair whether I wished to be suspended, and the Chairman would oblige me. ["Oh! oh!"] Now, that was actually suggested to me by several Members last night and I only state it for the purpose of repudiating it. The only other possible explanation, and the one which struck me at the time, is that if I persisted and continued to vote I should to a certain extent identify myself with the Party who were moving repeated adjournments, and would probably be suspended. That is the natural interpretation, and the one which presented itself to my mind; and though I did not say so in my original statement, I feel bound after the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury to state the facts as they occurred. The Chairman has said that he did not defend the Clerks at the Table, and I say the incident remains wholly unexplained as to why a Clerk at the Table should come up to me as he did. That requires some explanation, and I think the Chairman is responsible for the Clerks at the Table, and as Chairman—

MR. SPEAKER

It is right that I should point out to the House and the hon. and gallant Member that he is now referring to a communication of an informal kind, I apprehend, which passed between him and the Clerk at the Table outside the House. I do not understand the hon. and gallant Member to assert that the Clerk at the Table brought formally a communication from the Chairman to himself. If that were so the matter would assume a serious aspect indeed.

COLONEL NOLAN

Sir, when you say outside the House, I ought to explain that it was in the Division Lobby, and during a division, and when the bells were being rung for a division. I do not know whether that spot is outside the precincts of the House or not, but, at the same time, I wish to state the exact circumstances. I certainly looked upon it as an official communication, and would no more have thought it an unofficial communication than if an adjutant on parade came up to an officer, and, having come direct from the Colonel, gave him an order. I cannot look upon it in any other way. But we have now got the disclaimer of the Chairman of "Ways and Means. I, however, did not mean to assert, and did not assert, that the communication came from the Chairman. Still, the circumstance is, as I have already said, very extraordinary, and I am very glad I brought it before the House, as it required explanation, and I am very glad that it has brought forth the statement from the Chairman of Committees that no vote can subject a Member to the penalties of Obstruction. There is only one other point to which I wish to refer. I see that my conversation with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) is reported tolerably correctly in the papers, and I think it only fair to him to say how it occurred. I saw him in the outside Lobby some time before this incident, and, knowing him to be one of the highest authorities on the subject, I went up to him and said—"Mr. Raikes, may I ask you for an opinion?" When he gave it to me he laughed, and said—"I am no authority in the House, and I have no right to give you an opinion; but certainly, if I were Chairman, I should never dream of suspending a Member for mere voting." The Chairman of Ways and Means has given the same opinion to-day; but I think it is only right I should state what the right hon. Gentleman said, and that he did not volunteer an opinion. After having said this, I think the House will agree with me that the facts, as I stated them in my original speech, are the true facts.

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, the little I have to say I say subject entirely to your authority; but you have signified from the Chair that this is a matter of importance, and I only suggest that it appears to me that there is a most important gap in the explanation which has just been made to the House by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway, which it is very material should be supplied. What I expected to have heard from the hon. and gallant Gentleman was whether the Clerk at the Table, who seems to have conveyed some words to him, did or did not state that those words were a communication from the Chairman of Committees.

COLONEL NOLAN

I thought, Sir, I had already stated most distinctly that the Clerk at the Table did not make such a statement, and I have never for one moment asserted that he did so. On the contrary, I carefully guarded against it being supposed that he had made such an assertion, and the moment an hon. Member interpreted the words in that sense, I rose in my place and said—"No, not from the Chair, but the Table." If, however, the Prime Minister wishes to know what my impression was at the time, it was that the message had been sent by the Chairman of Committees; but I am quite sure now that the communication did not come from the Chair. Of course, I was in fault for not inquiring upon the point.