§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Speaker may, if in the interests of order he thinks it desirable to do so, adjourn the House without Question put, or suspend any sitting for a time to be named by him."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour)
§ (5.48.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR
On a point of order, will I be allowed the right of reply if I explain the Rule now?
§ MR. SPEAKER
The right hon. Gentleman, having moved this Standing Order, will be exhausting his right of reply if he speaks now.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)
May I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman may, by leave of the House, speak now, and reply later.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Then I will gladly speak now. The object of this Amendment is very simple. I think I gave some indication of its scope and character in the speech in which I introduced the Rules generally to the House. It is intended to meet two contingencies. The first of these is extremely rare. I doubt whether we have ever had an example of it; but we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that new developments have occurred in our own lifetime in respect to Parliamentary debate. It is possible that, were we a full House, such a scene of disorder might come about that it might be desirable for Mr. Speaker to give the House a brief period—an opportunity— for coolly considering, and perhaps himself considering, precisely what course ought to be adopted in difficult and unexampled circumstances. I remember bringing before the House, in my opening speech, the case of the great disturbance in 1893. No such adjournment of the House was possible then; but I do not know if it would have been disadvantageous. In slightly different circumstances I can quite imagine that an adjournment of the House would be the only way of meeting an unexampled Parliamentary crisis. That is one contingency. The other contingency is of a somewhat different character. It will, be remembered that it is not many years since we first adopted in our Rules a period after which controversial business was not permitted, nor could a division be taken. There might be a debate, although the House would be incapable of coming to a decision. Such a period occurs in the ordinary course after 12 o'clock; and if these Rules are passed in anything like their present form, it will occur between 7.15 and 8 o'clock. During these periods, when no division can be taken, and when there is no public reason why Members should stay, the Members in the House might be a very incomplete expression of the whole sense and feeling of the House. I was bitterly reproached the other night by hon. Gentlemen opposite because I did not stay after the last division on Thursday, when no controversial business 233 could be taken. I imagine that right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench never think of remaining here after 12 o'clock, and I do not see why they should. The whole object of the Rule as regards morning sittings is to permit Members of the House to go away as soon as Questions begin. If they are not interested there is no reason why they should stay. The result is that the House, at these hours, may be a most incomplete expression of itself, and might not be in any sense representative, and I can imagine that the Speaker might not find himself supported if the House were not representative. In these circumstances I see no injury but rather the contrary in giving Mr. Speaker the authority, which the President of every Foreign Assembly possesses, to adjourn the House for such a brief period as he may think fit. This Rule can do no possible harm, and may, in imaginable contingencies, greatly conduce to the dignity and order of our debates.
§ (5.56.) SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)
said that before the Amendment on the Paper was moved, he desired to say a few words on the Rule as proposed. As he understood the Rule it applied not only to the Speaker but also to the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman when acting for the Speaker. The objections which had been raised on the first Rule to arming the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman with some of the powers of the Speaker —however much they might trust them individually—continued in force as regarded the Rule under discussion, In discussing the Rules they had, of course, in their minds the excellent Parliamentary character of the present Chairman and Deputy Chairman. They should remember, however, that they had had as Chairmen Gentlemen who were pretty strong partisans, although they were undoubtedly good Chairmen. Old Members of the House would remember two, one on each side, who although perhaps the best Chairmen the House had ever seen, were strong partisans; and they had sometimes seen in the Chair Gentlemen, who, although possessed of great ability, frequently made mistakes with reference to the business of the House. There was the case of Sir Lyon Playfair, who, al- 234 though he possessed conspicuous ability and was one of the ablest men who had ever sat in the House, was yet not a good Chairman, and frequently made mistakes, despite his great ability. Those cases of partisanship or of error should make the House careful in giving powers of the kind proposed. It was the partisanship of future Chairmen that was to be feared, as the power to suspend the sitting might be used by a strong partisan in certain circumstances to defeat the desire of the House. It was said that the Rule was conditional on disorder, but disorder might very quickly be provoked by partisanship, and he thought that the power should be rigidly confined to the Speaker as long as the Chairman and Deputy Chairman were closely connected with the Government of the day. He therefore submitted that there were strong objections to the Rule as proposed, and if it were to be passed at all it should be accompanied by one of the Amendments on the Paper.
§ (5.58.) MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)
said it seemed to him the Rule was necessary. After 12 o'clock he submitted, with due respect, that the Speaker would not be able to enforce his authority, as it was impossible to divide the House or suspend a Member. He did not like the proposed alterations, but it was obvious they were necessary, and as the Rule before the House was harmless it ought to be adopted.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said it had been represented to the House that this Rule would only be appplicable in cases of great disorder in the House, but the remarks of the Leader of the House would seem to show that it would apply in other cases.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
That is my mistake. Perhaps I did not make myself quite clear. Scenes of disorder do sometimes occur, but if the House is normally constituted no doubt Mr. Speaker and the Chairman would have the support of the House. If, however, a scene of disorder occurs at these unusual hours I am not sure that Mr. Speaker might not find himself unsupported. It is that contingency I had in view, and I hope I have now made it clear.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said that, that being so, it was very necessary that they should have a strict definition of what was meant by disorder, otherwise, a partisan Chairman, when he found the Government was not in a majority, might threaten to adjourn the House. He might do it at any time of the day. It was quite plain that so long as there was a Speaker capable of taking the Chair, the Chairman of Committees and the Deputy Chairman should call the Speaker in. That had always been the practice, and such a practice as this should be tied down in every possible way, and it should not be used except in a scene of the very greatest disorder.
*(6.2.) MR. JAMES LOWTHER
assumed from what had been said, that if anything occurred say between 7.15 and 8 o'clock under this new Rule, and the House was suspended, the sitting would be resumed at the time at which, under the new Standing Order, it should resume. He complained that his right hon. friend the First Lord laid down no definite doctrine on this point. As to the Speaker leaving the Chair when disorder occurred, he thought such an idea was preposterous. To run away when an Assembly misconducted itself was the last thing a Speaker ought to do. His place then should be in the Chair where he could control disorder, but to follow the precedent of the Presidents of Foreign Assemblies who rang their bell and then ran away was to his mind quite the wrong principle of doing business. An explanation was needful in the event of the sitting being suspended on other grounds than disorder, say, when there was not a fair representation present of the various sections of the House. This might occur at hours when he thought no business ought to be done, as, for example, after 12 o'clock. The rules enabled the occupant of the Chair to quell disorder, and he was not disposed to be a party to the initiating of the new principle that the chief officer of the House should run away at a time when his authority was most required.
§ *(6.5.) ME. BLAKE
thought the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman for this Rule were absolutely in- 236 adequate. As a rule disorder rose from controversy in heated debate. That was the condition under which the House was liable to disorder. In the extraordinary hour between 12 and 1 it was very unlikely that any disorder would occur, as there would be nothing controversial or heated to promote it. Between 7.15 and 8 also there could be no question of disorder. At that period the only business was to be Questions. The right hon. Gentleman had said that at both these stages there might be a condition of things which would not give a sufficient guarantee that the ruling of Mr. Speaker would be respected a condition in which Mr. Speaker might not receive the support always given to him in a full House with the Leaders present. But this Order went further; there were other times and seasons in which the proposed House ought not to be, but yet might be, deprived of the suggested guarantee of order—the presence of leading Members of the House—and in which it might be important to one side or the other that a division should not take place. In that case disorder might be created to avoid division, therefore, in his judgment, this Rule might be provocative of disorder. He suggested that in place of the word "desirable" the word "necessary" should be substituted in the Rule. It must, of course, always be a matter of opinion for the occupant of the Chair, but it should be limited to the condition in which he thought action necessary, and it ought not to extend to any person but the Speaker himself. He himself was a witness to the entry of Mr. Speaker Peel at, perhaps, the most critical time the House had seen in the last ten years. The entrance of Mr. Speaker calmed the storm then at its height. He hoped that would always be the result of the Speaker's entrance; he declined to look forward to a time when the Speaker would cease to have the authority and the moral power to quell by the exertion of his influence a disturbance in the House, and he deplored the suggestion that this time might arrive. At any rate, if it was considered necessary to adopt this Rule, let the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman do their duty, and if they thought that disorder had arisen let them summon the Speaker and 237 let him be the judge. The power under this Rule should be limited to the Speaker himself.
(6.10.) MR. GIBSON BOWLES
asked, on a point of order, whether there would be power on the part of the Speaker to name a Member after 12 o'clock. His view was that there was such a power.
§ *MR. SPEAKER
There is no doubt whatever that I have the power to name an hon. Member after 12 o'clock, and that a division may be taken upon the Question of suspension. Proceedings under a Standing Order are exempt from the 12 o'clock rule. The naming and suspension of a Member are proceedings taken under a Standing Order.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said that the House now knew that the Rules of Order and the increased penalties to secure the maintenance of order extended over the whole sittings of the House. The extraordinary increase in the severity of the Rules seemed to him to be almost a conclusive argument against the granting of the unknown power which this Rule placed in the power of the Chair. He did not know whether hon. Members had had any experience of the working of this kind of Rule in controversial business. It had never been necessary, hitherto, in the House. On the contrary, it had been necessary, to bring the House to order when disorder arose, not that the Speaker should leave the Chair, but that he should be summoned to the Chair. There was a, special Order which said that whenever disorder arose in the House the Speaker should be sent for. There had been a case of that kind in 1893, when the entrance of the Speaker had quelled the storm. The point was, not that the Speaker should leave the Chair, as was the case in foreign Assemblies, but that he should come back to it. In Continental Assemblies disorder went on growing, and the President rang his bell and kept on putting on his hat until, in despair, as it were, he jumped overboard and suspended the sitting. The usual result of that was a free fight on the floor of the House. The moment the sitting was suspended and the Speaker left the Chair, there was no authority in the House, and the passions which had been aroused during 238 the preceding discussion found free play without the respect which even a Continental Assembly gave to its President. The only occasion on which any suggestion of this kind had before been made was, as he had already pointed out, in the time of Charles I., when the Speaker attempted to adjourn the House, but was held in his Chair while a Resolution was passed over his head. Scenes of that description might be re-enacted under such a Rule as that under discussion. He did not believe that—even under the new Rule, which would tend to make the House of Commons more disorderly—an occasion would ever arise in which the present powers in the hands of the Speaker would not suffice, and when it would be necessary to do so extraordinary a thing as this Rule for the first time made possible. There was the further point that the power might be exercised not only by the Speaker, but by the Chairman of Committees and by the Deputy Chairman.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES
admitted the limitation, but pointed out that the Rule threw an enormous responsibility on the discretion of the person acting as Speaker. The condition under which the rule became possible was that the Speaker must think it desirable, in the interest of order, to adjourn the House without Question put or to suspend the sitting. To adjourn the House without Question put was to take the business of the House out of the hands of the House, and that was contrary to all its traditions. With regard to the discretion of the Gentleman in the Chair, he did not intend to make the slightest imputation or suggestion against either the Chairman of Committees or the Deputy Chairman, but it could not be supposed that either of those Gentlemen would bring to bear exactly the same discretion, the same knowledge of the rules, and the same judgment of the temper of the House as would the Speaker. An occasion might arise under which the Deputy Chairman would adjourn the House, without Question put, thereby stopping all business, under circumstances that were highly 239 exasperating. To adjourn the House and carry the business over to the next day was one thing, but this rule gave the Speaker or his Deputy the extraordinary power of suspending the sitting for a period to be named by him. No such power belonged to the President of any political Assembly in the world and no justification whatever had been put forward of the proposal to make it possible here. The power would be exercised only in such a scene of disorder that the Speaker felt he could no longer exercise authority over the House, and therefore suspended the sitting. The wording was rather vague, but he presumed the sitting must be resumed the same day. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.] But for how many hours was the sitting to be suspended? It might very likely be that on resuming a few hours afterwards the angry passions would not have cooled, and then the only course open to the Speaker would be that which should have been adopted in the first instance—viz., that of adjourning the House. He did not like these new - fangled notions. The right hon. Gentleman had said that we had not much to learn from foreign Assemblies. In his (the hon. Member's) belief we had nothing whatever to learn from them; on the contrary, they had a great deal to learn from us. The President of a great foreign Assembly had said to him that the so-called popular Assemblies in Europe were rubbish, that the only one that was not rubbish was the British House of Commons, and the reason that was the exception was that it was a free Assembly, its Members having the rights of free speech, of free action, of managing their own business, of fixing their own adjustments—in fact, all those rights many of which were now to be taken away. It was because of those rights that the House of Commons had learnt to exercise a considerable amount of selfcontrol; but if they were to be treated as an assembly of naughty school-boys, to be put in the corner and birched, to be kept out of the House, and all that sort of thing, the character of he House of Commons would certainly be destroyed. He hoped this most unnecessary rule would be reconsidered; 240 otherwise it would have an extremely damaging effect on the reputation of the House.
§ (6.20.) MR. ASQUITH (Fife, E.)
You have already corrected from the Chair, Sir, a misapprehension under which the Leader of the House appeared to labour.
§ MR. ASQUITH
At any rate, there was one misapprehension that many of us from his speech thought that he was under, viz., that it was impossible after 12 o'clock to put a Motion on which it was necessary to take a division.
§ MR. ASQUITH
I am sorry if I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, but I can assure him it is a misunderstanding shared by a large number of Members of the House; and I thought, therefore, it might even now be worth while to point out that on the occasion which many of us remember with much pain and regret—I mean the events which occurred on March 5th last—precisely that question arose. The Chairman suspended business at 12 o'clock; the right hon. Gentleman moved the Closure, which was carried; and it was on the consequential Motion that the original Question be now put that the scene of disorder arose, being caused by certain hon. Members refusing to leave the House. Thereupon, the Speaker, who had been called in, named those hon. Gentlemen, and the Motion was made and a division called on the Question that they be suspended. It is, therefore, quite clear that the House has power as well after 12 o'clock as before to entertain Motions of this kind, and to take disciplinary action that may be necessary for the preservation of order. I simply say that by way of correcting a possible misapprehension.
Let me add with reference to this particular proposal that, on the question of principle, so far as I am concerned, 241 I do not see the serious objections to it which have been taken by the hon. and gallant Member for Kings Lynn. If on March 5th last the Speaker had had this power either of suspension or of adjourment, I think that scene would never have taken place, and one of the most painful incidents in the recent history of this House would have been avoided. Therefore, supposing the power is adequately safeguarded and kept in the right hands, I, for one, am in favour of this change. There are two safeguards which seem to me to be absolutely essential. In the first place, it should be perfectly clear that the power should never be exercised except for the specific purpose of repressing grave disorder. It should be put beyond all possibility of suspicion that the Chair, in the exercise of its discretion, was acting only for the purpose of the maintenance of order when order was seriously menaced. The second safeguard, which is of equal importance, is that this power—which cannot be often resorted to, and happily will be used on the fewest and rarest possible occasions—should be confined to the permanent occupant of the Chair. I am sure that if that power of suspending the sitting is given to the casual occupants of the Chair, the misunderstandings and misconstructions to which the exercise of that power would give rise would be infinitely more detrimental to the interests of order and the reputation of the House. But if the power is confined to the Speaker, with his great judicial position, put, as he is, above all possibility of suspicion of partisanship or improper motive, it seems to me to be a power which might be very usefully granted, and, which would, in the long run, add to the order of the House and the authority of the Speaker.
§ (6.26.) MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said that he was more in agreement with the Government than was the hon. Member for Kings Lynn in regard to this particular proposal, although he admitted that under certain circumstances the suspension of the sitting might lead to an aggravation rather than a diminution of disorder. He trembled to think what might have 242 happened on that famous occasion to which so many allusions had been made, if the Speaker had not come into the House at the right moment, and, by the influence of his own strong character as much as by that of his high office, quieted the disturbance. The Leader of the House was, certainly, going on right lines in giving Members an opportunity to recover their senses and to cool their tempers. There was one point, however, he would put very strongly to the right hon. Gentleman. He and his colleagues had a very strong feeling—which doubtless the Leader of the House thought a wrong feeling—that the most punitive of these rules were intended for one section of the House. He himself was of opinion that the Irish Members could play their part within the rules of the game, that they could advance their cause and at the same time keep strictly within constitutional rules. But everybody was liable to lose his head under certain circumstances, and the supreme and ultimate punishment, involving the suspension of a Member, and, more important still, the disfranchisement of the constituency, should be avoided, if possible. This rule was a step in that direction, but he would propose a further safeguard, viz., that before the portion of the rule dealing with punishment was brought into operation the Speaker should suspend the sitting, in order to give hon. Members an opportunity of cooling down and reconsidering the situation, so that they should not act on mere impulse. Irish Members had a special right to ask for this extension of the rule, because they formed a permanent minority in the House, and were perhaps by nature somewhat more excitable than other Members. Under the latter portion of the rule which had just been postponed it was possible to suspend 10, 50, or 80 Irish Members all at once. That was a most undesirable thing in the interests of Ireland, and he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would join with him in adopting any means to prevent such a thing. Although he was in favour of this rule, he had always felt that it was a rule which might be used to the advantage of British Members and to the prejudice of Irish 243 Members. They all remembered the sitting of 1893. In that sitting English men, Scotchmen, and a certain number of Irishmen, lost their heads—
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said he was aware that the English Members began the row, but he thought there was a certain inclination on the part of the Irish Members to have a hand in the fight. If it had been so many Irish Members had lost their heads upon that occasion, it would have ended in the wholesale suspension of Irish Members. It ended, however, in the entrance of Mr. Speaker, who calmed the whole storm without a single hon. Member being either named or suspended, and he thought that was a proper ending. If that row had been made by Irishmen, they would have been suspended en bloc. He thought Mr. Speaker should suspend the sitting before ho carried out any wholesale suspension of hon. Members. He wished all sections of the House to be upon the same level, and he strongly put it to the House that before Mr. Speaker was given power to suspend any large number, hon. Members should be given an opportunity of recovering their senses and getting back their good temper. With those safeguards he thought this was a rule which the House might very well adopt.
(6.34.) MB. VICARY GIBBS (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)
said he could not take the same constitutional objection to this proposal as that put forward by the hon. Member for Kings Lynn, although he thought the House would be inclined to agree with the objection taken to the last few words. He suggested that his right hon. friend should consider the matter and strike out all the words after "put." If that course were adopted he thought it might lead to the termination of the discussion on this point. If those powers were confined to Mr. Speaker and not to any Deputy Speaker, he thought there would be no objection at all to this Clause. His meaning was that Mr. Speaker should have power to adjourn 244 the House without Question put, and he thought that would be quite sufficient to meet the case. He thought those powers were more likely to be accepted by the House if they were confined to one official instead of being spread over a number of other men.
(6.38.) MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)
said the general tendency upon the Opposition side of the House was to look with suspicion upon most of the proposals which were made by the Government. He confessed, however, that upon this matter he had been very much shaken from his usual attitude. Hon. Members would remember some time ago the debate upon the South African question, in which the Colonial Secretary wound up the debate and completely exonerated Mr. Rhodes. Immediately after the Colonial Secretary sat down, the hon. Member for Birkenhead got up and began to protest very strongly against the Colonial Secretary's statement, and when it was discovered what his object was, gentlemen opposite caused a great clamour. The hon. Baronet, however, courageously struggled against the clamour, but without avail, and Mr. Speaker was under the necessity of calling upon the hon. Baronet who was attempting to address the House, to sit down and yield to the illegal disorder and clamour of the House. If upon that occasion the present proposal had been in force and if Mr. Speaker had intimated to the disorderly majority that he would suspend the sitting, he ventured to say that the hon. Baronet the Member for Birkenhead would have been given a hearing. Under those circumstances he certainly should not vote against this proposal, and he felt himself put under the necessity of voting for the Government.
§ (6.42.) MR. DISRAELI
said he should like to know if the First Lord was going to move an Amendment to his own Amendment in order to make it quite clear that it was only the Speaker who was going to use these functions and not the Deputy Speakers. As the matter stood, the Speaker meant not only the Speaker 245 but also the Deputy Speakers. He hoped that that point would he made clear. Technical reasons were matters which they could not afford to leave out of sight. They had sometimes the Whips sending hon. Members in during the dinner hour, and at other times, in order to keep the debate going until the Government had a proper majority. To him that seemed an absurdity, and he thought this was a matter which could be used in wasting time to get men to come down to the House. They had an illustration of these tactics quite recently, and he did not think that this power ought to be put in any other hands except those of the Speaker without some very strong reservation. He looked upon the fact of the Speaker leaving the Chair in somewhat the same way as he should look upon troops firing on a mob after the Riot Act had been read. The Speaker could leave the Chair without the authority of the House if he chose to do so. He would move an Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, in order to strengthen the position of the House in its dealings with the Speaker.
§ (6.46.) MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)
said it seemed to him that the discussion now going on had shown a great deal of unanimity on the part of the House, and that Members on both sides knew pretty well the direction in which this Amendment to the standing order might be restricted. The right hon. Gentleman had, be thought, agreed that it should be reserved for cases of grave disorder. In the second place, it was suggested that the power should only be left in the hands of the Speaker. Perhaps that was a little more debatable. He moved that the words on the Paper should be prefaced by these words: "In the case of grave disorder arising in the House."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
The only difference between the Amendment of the hon. Member and the Standing Order as proposed by myself, is that he inserts the word "grave." It is only a matter of drafting. I think that strange and exaggerated fears have been suggested as to the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker. If it will allay 246 those fears, and if it will make doubly clear what I think is already clear, that it is only in the contingency of grave disorder that this Rule is to be put in force, I have not the slightest objection to accept the Amendment.
§ (6.50.) SIR CHARLES DILKE
said something more than the hon. Gentleman suggested would be required. What he wanted to guard against was the wilful provocation of disorder for the purpose of bringing about the suspension of a sitting. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman thought this was an imaginary danger. Ho was quite sure it was not an imaginary danger. There were cases, of which they had an example the other day, where persons were profoundly stirred and where the minority in the House had the strongest conscientious objections to a particular measure proposed to the House. There were other cases where a small minority of the House might desire to bring forward questions which still more strongly aroused passions, and where they had the right to bring their opinions to the test of a division in the House. That was the proper constitutional way of bringing the questions before the Government. There were Members of the House who were violently opposed to the legis ation favoured by the majority. He was certain that, if the Rule was passed in this unguarded form, grave disorder would be provoked for the purpose of getting the sitting of the House suspended. The memory of Members would take them back to cases where such action would have been taken. This Rule would add to the facility with which it would be possible to defeat the constitutional right of minorities to bring questions to the test of a division in the House.
§ *MR. CLAUDE LOWTHER (Cumberland, Eskdale)
said he should like it to be in the power of the Speaker not only to adjourn or suspend a sitting, but also to prolong a sitting. If the Speaker had had that power the other day, it would have been impossible for what happened to have taken place. In that case the committal of a Bill to the Committee was prevented by the organised dilatoriness 247 of Members in passing through the lobby. It seemed to him little short of miraculous that a measure which was approved by an overwhelming majority in the country, should be prejudiced and perhaps indefinitely shelved through the machinations of a few frenzied faddists. He moved after the word "suspended" to insert "or prolong."
Question amended, by inserting at the beginning the words—
In the case of grave disorder arising in he House," by leaving out the words "in the interest of order," and by leaving out the ord "desirable," and inserting the word necessary."—(Mr. Lough.)
§ MR. DISRAELI
moved to insert after the word "so," "and after repeatedly calling the House to order." That was to prevent the Speaker from taking the matter into his own hands.
After the word "so," to insert the words "after repeatedly calling the House to order."—(Mr. Disraeli.)
§ Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
This would be dictating to the Speaker, and I hope the hon. Member will not insist upon it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.,||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Charrington, Spencer|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Boscawen, Arthur Grifiith-||Churchill, Winston Spencer|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Boulnois, Edmund||Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.|
|Allsopp, Hon. George||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St John||Coghill, Douglas Harry|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Cohen, Benjamin Louis|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse|
|Asher, Alexander||Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Bull, William James||Compton, Lord Alwyne|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Bullard, Sir Harry||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Butcher, John George||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Campbell, Rt Hn J. A. (Glasgow)||Craig, Robert Hunter|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Cranborne, Viscount|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edwd. H.||Crombie, John William|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Cautley, Henry Strother||Cross, Herb. Shephord (Bolton)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Crossley, Sir Savile|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.)||Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)||Cubitt, Hon. Henry|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Cust, Henry John C.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Dalkeith, Earl of|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.||Dalrymple, Sir Charles|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r||Dewar, T. R (Tr H'mlets, S. Geo.|
|Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Dickinson, Robert Edmond|
|Bignold, Arthur||Chapman, Edward||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.|
§ (7.0.) MR. LOUGH
said there was an Amendment on the Paper in his name to leave out, in line 1, from "so" to "suspend," in line 2. He had given this matter a good deal of thought, and he believed that it would be quite sufficient if the Speaker had only the power to suspend the sitting for the same day.
Amendment proposed, after the word "so," to leave out the words—
Adjourn the House without Question put."—(Mr. Lough.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I do not see any reason why we should limit the power of the Speaker in this way.
Amendment proposed, after the word "put," to leave out the words—
Or suspend any sitting for a time to be named by him."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
§ (7.7.) Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ The House divided:—Aves, 262; Noes, 131. (Division List, No. 30.)251
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon||Kearley, Hudson E.||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-||Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. Salop-||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Duke, Henry Edward||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart||Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Round, James|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Lawson, John Grant||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Evans, Sir Fr'ncis H. (Maidstone||Lecky, Rt. Hn. Wm. Edwd. H.||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J.(Manch'r||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edwd.|
|Finch, George H.||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Firbank, Joseph Thomas||Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.||Seely, Maj. J. E. B (Isle of Wight|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Fison, Frederick William||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Fitzroy, Hn. Edwd. Algernon||Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S)||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East|
|Flower, Ernest||Lowe, Francis William||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Forster, Henry William||Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)||Spear, John Ward|
|Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)|
|Foster, Philip S (Warwiek, S. W.||Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth)||Stanley, Hn Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred||Stanley, Edward Jas. (S'merset)|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Macartney, Rt. Hn. WG. Ellison||Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)|
|Gardner, Ernest||Macdona, John Cumming||Stewart, Sir Mark J M 'Taggart|
|Garfit, William||Maconochie, A. W.||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Gibbs, Hn. A G. H (City of Lond.||M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)||Stock, James Henry|
|Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)||M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John||Manners, Lord Cecil||Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Maple, Sir John Blundell||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn||Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n)||Tennant, Harold John|
|Gordon Maj. Evans-(TrH'mlets||Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon||Mollor, Rt. Hn. John William||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Graham, Henry Robert||Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Tomlinson, Wm. Edwd. Murray|
|Green, Walf'rd D. (Wednesbury||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds||Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Grenfell, William Henry||Morgan, D'vid J. (Walth'mstow||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Gretton, John||Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||Morrell, George Herbert||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Guthrie, Walter Murray||Morrison, James Archibald||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Haldane, Richard Burdon||Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford||Welby, Lt, -Col. ACE (Taunton)|
|Halsey, Thomas Frederick||Muntz, Philip A.||Welby, Sir Chas. G.E. (Notts.)|
|Hambro, Charles Eric||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute||Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd|
|Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Mid'x.||Myers, William Henry||Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne|
|Hamilton, Marq. Of (L'nd'nde'ry||Nicholson William Graham||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Hardy, La'rence (Kent, Ashford||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Palmer, Walter Salisbury||Williams, Rt Hn J Pow'll-(Birm.|
|Harris, Frederick Leverton||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Pemberton, John S. G.||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.||Percy, Earl||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)|
|Henderson, Alexander||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Wood, James|
|Hoare, Sir Samuel||Plummer, Walter R.||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Hogg, Lindsay||Purvis, Robert||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Hope, J.F (Sheffield, Brightside||Pym, C. Guy||Wylie, Alexander|
|Horner, Frederick William||Randles, John S.||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Rankin. Sir James||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Hoult, Joseph||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies||Rattigan, Sir William Henry||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton||Reid. James (Greenock)||Sir William Walrond and|
|Johnston. William (Belfast)||Renshaw, Charles Bine||Mr. Anstruther.|
|Joicey, Sir James||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E)||Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn|
|Allan, William (Gateshead)||Bell, Richard||Broadhurst, Henry|
|Ambrose, Robert||Blake. Edward||Burke, E. Haviland-|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.))||Boland, John||Burns, John|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)|
|Caldwell, James||Jordan, Jeremiah||O'Malley, William|
|Carew, James Laurence||Joyce, Michael||O'Mara, James|
|Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton||Kennedy, Patrick James||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth||O'Shee, James John|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Labouchere, Henry||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Lambert, George||Price, Robert John|
|Crean, Eugene||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Rea, Russell|
|Cremer, William Randal||Lewis, John Herbert||Reddy, M.|
|Cullinan, J.||Lloyd-George, David||Redmond, John E.(Waterford)|
|Davits, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Lough, Thomas||Reid, Sir R. T. (Dumfries)|
|Delany, William||Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Lundon, W.||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Dillon. John||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Roche, John|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Doogan, P. C.||M'Crae, George||Russell, T. W.|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||M'Fadden, Edward||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Edwards, Frank||M'Govern, T.||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Emmott, Alfred||M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Esmonde. Sir Thomas||M'Kenna, Reginald||Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Fenwick, Charles||Moulton, John Fletcher||Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Ffrench, Peter||Murphy, John||Thompson, Dr. EC (Monagh'n, N|
|Field, William||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Newnes, Sir George||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Gilhooly, James||Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)||Ure, Alexander|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Wallace, Robert|
|Grant, Corrie||Norman, Henry||Walton, J. Dawson (Leeds, S.)|
|Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Wrarner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Hammond, John||O'Brien, James E. X. (Cork)||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Harcourt, Rt Hon. Sir William||O'Brien, K. (Tippcrary, Mid.)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Harmsworth, R. Leicester||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Whiteley, George (York,W.R.)|
|Harwood, George||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)||Young, Samuel|
|Holland, William Henry||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Jacoby, James Alfred||O'Doherty, William||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Jameson, Major J. Eustace||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Mr. Caine and Captain|
|Jones, David B. (Swansea)||O'Dowd, John||Donelan.|
§ (7.21.) MR. GALLOWAY (Manchester, S.W.)
said he should only delay the House a moment or two in moving the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper. He thought the proposal of the Government was a very grave step for them to take, and until they saw how the Rule worked he thought this power ought to be confined to the Speaker. He hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would be able to accept this Amendment, which he assured him was not moved in any hostile spirit but simply in the interests of the House.
Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words—
But this power shall not be exercised by the Chairman of Ways and Means or the Deputy Chairman when acting under Standing Order 83."—(Mr. Galloway.)
§ Question proposed "That those words be there added."252
§ (7.24.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Certain hon. Members of the House seem very unduly alarmed about the powers which this Standing Order would give to the Chairman of Committees and to the Deputy Chairman when acting in the capacity of Speaker. The occasions when they would act in the capacity of Speaker are not very common. If there were cases of grave disorder, it is the Chairman and Deputy Chairman who would be most in need of the power conferred by this order. In the course of my Parliamentary experience, I have seen speakers who exercised an immense personal authority over the House which grew from year to year during the tenure of the office. But that control over a stormy scene must be somewhat less in the case of a Deputy Speaker suddenly and unexpectedly called upon to take the Chair; and he, above all others, should have the opportunity in a stormy scene of allowing heated passions to cool by an Adjournment of the House until such a time as his less experienced 253 hand would obtain control over it. I strongly deprecate the Amendment of my hon. friend, although I quite recognise the friendly spirit in which it is moved.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
asked if the Chairman under such circumstances had not a perfect right to call in Mr. Speaker.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Only the Speaker or the person acting as Speaker has, under any circumstance, this power.
§ (7.26.) MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)
said there was a very strong feeling on the Opposition side of the House against this enormous power being given to the Deputy Speaker. The original argument remained that the Deputy Speaker, not being a permanent official, could not divest himself so thoroughly of a feeling of partisanship as Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means. He had seen a kind of artificially fomented disorder got up by gentlemen who came down to the House after ten o'clock, and with cries of "divide, divide!" and inarticulate shouts, had tried to shout down speakers on the other side when they thought the debate was going on too long. He could easily understand the Deputy Speaker losing his head under such circumstances and giving way to artificial pressure of that kind, whereas a permanent officer of the House would not be likely to be carried away with such feelings. He thought the Amendment of his hon. friend was a valuable one, and he trusted that the House would accept it.
(7.28.) MR. JAMES LOWTHER
said he was against the Rule as a whole. But he thought that if they were to signify to the Speaker that it was his duty to run away in the moment of danger, the same facilities to clear out should be extended to the Deputy Speaker.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)
regretted that the First Lord of the Treasury should refuse to amend any of the Rules even at the wish of hon. Members on his own side of the House. By this course he assured the right hon. Gentleman that he was not conducing to the debates on the Rules being brief. He always understood that a practical 254 Minister put in a good deal in order to lighten the ship by throwing it out, and then he got on better with the rest of the cargo. The First Lord said the case which had been raised would very rarely occur, and if it did occur it would only be when Mr. Speaker and the Chairman of Committees were both incapacitated. If that contention was correct, then it would be better not to give these powers to the Deputy Chairman. If the case was one which hardly ever occurred, was it worth while passing this Rule against the feelings of a large number of Members of the House in order to meet this possible contingency? They were all very anxious to get to the end of these Rules as soon as possible, because these discussions were the most boring that the mind of man could conceive. If the Leader of the House would listen to the Opposition and make concessions to them, he was certain that the Rules would pass in half the time which they occupied by reason of the right hon. Gentleman's obstructive attitude.
§ (7.33.) SIR JAMES FERGUSSON (Manchester,N.E.)
said it seemed to him inconsistent and illogical that the hon. Member who had just spoken should suggest that it was going too far to give the power to suspend the sitting to the temporary Speaker when they had already clothed the Chairman of Committees and the Deputy Chairman with the power of suspension of Members.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL
said he agreed with the Amendment. He believed that this Rule, and in fact the majority of the Rules, were aimed directly against the Irish Party, and that it was quite possible to make this Rule a vindictive instrument against the Irish Party. What might occur under the Rule was that the Speaker, the Chairman of Committees, and the Deputy Chairman could suspend the sittings of the House. Supposing they happened to be Party men, it was only necessary for them to see a ring of members belonging to their own Party promoting disorder, and the almost irresistible temptation would be to adjourn the House to save their own Party. But that would not apply to the Irish Party. Where the Irish Party would be suspended in large numbers 255 English Parties would not be suspended at all. It might be that there was impending what was called a touch-and-go division, the result of which no one could foretell; then if six or seven gentlemen promoted disorder the Chairman might suspend the sitting on the ground of great disorder, so that it was in the power of a few supporters of the Government to have the sitting suspended until such time as the Government could not be taken at a disadvantage. The Rule was doubly bad, because the Deputy Chairman was one of the active Members of the House, and engaged in fighting Party battles every day. Such power as this should not be given to anybody but the Speaker himself. The Chairman and the Deputy Chairman could not divest themselves of their Party feeling in the same way as the Speaker. For these reasons he strongly urged the Government only to give this great power to Mr. Speaker and his successors in the Chair. It was intolerable that such a power should be exercised by Party men, having regard to the enormous Party advantages that could be derived from it. By that power they might be able to defeat a hostile division. It was a Rule framed in the interest of the great majority of the House as against the minority, and on these grounds he supported the Amendment.
§ (7.37.) MR.DILLON (Mayo, E.)
expressed the opinion that a very important point had been raised by the hon. Member for South Donegal. The importance of this Rule had been very much minimised. Let him refer to a case which would be in the recent memory of the House. In a case like the Second Reading of the Marriage with Deceased Wife's Sister Fill which recently occurred, was it not likely that men with such strong opinions—
Order, order! That argument is not in order on this Amendment. The question is whether this power should be given to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means.
§ MR. DILLON
said the great point in the Amendment was that the risk of the Chairman acting with a certain degree of want of impartiality if a certain section of Members promoted disorder would be greatly increased if these powers were extended to a man who was a working member of the Party opposite, and might have for a month before he took the Chair spoken and voted with the Government. For that reason it was very wrong to give discretion to a gentleman who had a certain amount of sympathy with the one side of the House in this matter. There were one or two things which ought to be the rule, especially in dealing with Deputy Chairmen or Chairmen of Ways and Means. Either he ought to be compelled on an occasion of grave disorder to suspend the sitting forthwith, or he ought to be compelled to quell the disorder, but he ought not to have the choice of the two methods which might be exercised in a partial and unfair manner for the benefit of a Party.
§ MR. GALLOWAY
said that after what had fallen from his right hon. friend he was quite satisfied, and intended to support the Rule, therefore he begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Leave being refused,
§ (7.37.) Question put.
§ The House divided; Ayes, 136:— Noes, 219.(Division List, No. 31.)
|Field, William||M'Fadden, Edward||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Flynn, James Christopher||M'Govern, T.||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Roche, John|
|Gilhooly, James||M'Kenna. Reginald||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Runciman, Walter|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Russell, T. W.|
|Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)||Morley, Rt. Hon. J. (Montrose)||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Haldane, Richard Burdon||Moulton, John Fletcher||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel.|
|Hammond, John||Murphy, John||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Harwood, George||Nolan, Cl. John P.(Galway, N.)||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (N'rth'nts|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Holland, William Henry||Norman, Henry||Thomas, Alfred(Glamorgan,E.)|
|Jacoby, James Alfred||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||Thomas, Dd. Alfred (Merthyr)|
|Jameson. Major J. Eustace||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary M.)||Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower)|
|Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Thompson, Dr. E C (Mon'gh'n, N)|
|Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)|
|Jordan, Jeremiah||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)||Ure, Alexander|
|Joyce, Michael||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Wallace, Robert|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||O'Doherty, William||Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S)|
|Kennedy. Patrick James||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth||O'Dowd, John||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Lambert. George||O'Kelly, James(Roscomm'n N.)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||O'Malley, William||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Leese, Sir Jo'eph F. (Accrington)||O'Mara, James||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer-|
|Lloyd-George, David||O'Shee, James John||Wood, James|
|Lough, Thomas||Philipps, John Wynford||Young, Samuel|
|Lundon, W.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Price, Robert John||TELLEBS FOR THE AYES—|
|MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Rea, Russell||Mr. Dillon and Mr.|
|M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Reddy, M.||Labouchere.|
|M'Crae, George||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)'|
|Agg-Gardener, James Tynte||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready||Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Compton, Lord Alwyne||Gordon, Maj. Evans- (T'rH'm'ts|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Cranborne, Viscount||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Cross, Her. Shepherd (Bolton)||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Crossley, Sir Savile||Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Greene, Sir E. W. (B'y S. Edm'ds|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Cust, Henry John C.||Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Dalkeith, Earl of||Grenfell, William Henry|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.)||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Hambro, Charles Eric|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Dewar, T.R. (T'rH'mlets, S.G.)||Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Mi'x|
|Balfour, Rt Hn. G'r'ld W (Leeds)||Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Hare, Thomas Leigh|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich'el Hicks||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Harris, Frederick Leverton|
|Bignold, Arthur||Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.|
|Bigwood, James||Duke, Henry Edward||Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Hay, Hon. Claude George|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart||Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (Kings Lynn)||Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas||Heaton, John Henniker|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Fellowes, Hon. A. E.||Henderson, Alexander|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r||Hoare, Sir Samuel|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Finch, George H.||Hogg, Lindsay|
|Butcher, John George||Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightsi'e|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Firbank, Joseph Thomas||Horner, Frederick William|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Fisher, William Hayes||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Fison, Frederick William||Hoult, Joseph|
|Cavendish, V.C.W. (D'rbyshire||Fitzroy, Hon. Edwd. Algernon||Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm Lawies|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Flower, Ernest||Johnston, William (Belfast)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.)||Forster, Henry William||Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh)|
|Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worcr)||Foster, Sir M. (Lond. Univ.)||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.)||Keswick, William|
|Chapman, Edward||Galloway, William Johnson||King, Sir Henry Seymour|
|Charrington, Spencer||Gardner, Ernest||Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Garfit, William||Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lon.||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)|
|Lawson, John Grant||Percy, Earl||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)||Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. R.||Stock, James Henry|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.||Plummer, Walter R.||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Purvis, Robert||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol S.)||Pym, C. Guy||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Lonsdale,John Brownlee||Randles, John S.||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Lowe, Francis William||Rankin, Sir James||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Ratcliff, R. F.||Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray|
|Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)||Reid, James (Greenock)||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred||Renshaw, Charles Bine||Valentia, Viscount|
|Macartney, Rt. Hon. W. G. E.||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Macdona, John Gumming||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Manners, Lord Cecil||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Maxwell, W.J.H.(Duinfries'sh. Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye||Wason,JohnCathc'rt (Orkney) Webb, Col. William George|
|Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Round, James||Welby, Sir Chas. G.E. (Notts)|
|Montagu, G (Huntingdon)||Royds, Clement Molyneux||Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd|
|More, R. J. (Shropshire)||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Whiteley,H. (Asht'mmd. Lyne)|
|Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)||Samuol, Harry S. (Limehouse)||Williams, Rt. Hn.J.P. (Birm.)|
|Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.||Saunderson,Rt. Hon. Col. E.J.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Morrell, George Herbert||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Morrison, James Archibald||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)||Seely,Maj. J E A.(Isle of Wight||Wilson, J. W. (Worcester N.)|
|Muntz, Philip A.||Seton-Karr, Henry||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)||Sharpe, William Edward T.||Wortley, Rt. tin. C.B. Stuart|
|Nicholson, William Graham||Skewes-Cox, Thomas||Wylie, Alexander|
|Nicol, Donald Ninian||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Smith, H. C. (N'rth'mb. T'neside||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Smith, Hon. W. F. I). (Strand)|
|Parkes, Ebenezer||Spear, John Ward||TETTERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)||Sir William Walrond and|
|Peel, Hon. Wm. Robt. W.||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormsk.)||Mr. Anstruther.|
|Pemberton, John S. G.||Stanley, Ed. Jas. (Somerset)|
|Penn, John||Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)|
§ (7.52.) MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said that when, at an earlier stage of the debate, he proposed to make the suspension of the sitting a necessary preliminary to the suspension of more than one Member, the Speaker ruled that the proper course was to move the provision in the form of a proviso. The proviso he desired to move was as follows:—Provided that before the naming of more than one Member at the same time the Speaker should exercise the said power of suspending the sitting.
§ *MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! After what the hon. Member has described had passed he brought to me the Motion he proposed to move. I then came to the conclusion that it was a Motion which could not be made on this Rule. The proper place for such an Amendment is on Standing Order No.21. This rule gives power to the Speaker to act in a certain way, and the hon. Member proposes that the exercising of the power should be a condition precedent to the suspension of several members. That 260 comes properly as an Amendment to Standing Order No. 21, and not to the Rule under discussion.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
asked whether he would be in order in moving the addition of the proviso which he had read to Standing Order No. 21.
§ *MR. SPEAKER
I did not say that the hon. Member would be in order in interposing an Amendment to Standing Order No. 21. Of course he has the ordinary right of every Member of putting down a notice of Motion.
§ Main Question, as amended, again proposed.
§ (7.57.) MR. SWIFT MACNEILL
desired to speak against the proposal as a whole. The Rule was a practical effacement of Parliamentary procedure and a great insult to the House of Commons. During the whole of its history there had never been a single case in which the House had been unable to vindicate its authority and to be master of itself. 261 This Rule, however, declared that the House was no longer able to control its own proceedings, and such a declaration would have a very detrimental effect on Continental opinion. As to the practice in Continental assemblies, he believed that, whenever the Speaker left the Chair, he afterwards communicated to the House the names of the Members whom he believed to have been instrumental in making the suspension of the sitting necessary. Under this Rule the Speaker was to do nothing of the kind. The meaning of that was that Members of the British section of the House were to be allowed to create as much disorder as they liked, whereas the Irish Members would immediately be had up under the punitive rules. He greatly regretted to see the old privileges of the House absolutely smashed and effaced by the First Lord with the aid of the majority at his back, many Members of which did not know the effect of the Rules for which they were voting. On only two occasions in Parliamentary history had there been anything approaching a riot in the House. The first was in the time of Charles II., when a serious disturbance occurred with the Chairman in the Chair. Sir Edward Seymour stepped into the Chair, and immediately the mace was placed upon the Table, and the disturbance was quelled, simply by the authority of the mouthpiece of the House itself. The other occasion was in July, 1893, and in that case also, as soon as Mr. Speaker came into the House, the disturbance ceased. He regarded this as a very shameful and despicable power to give to an unscrupulous occupant of the Chair. Disorder would be encouraged under this Rule. He remembered a case in which under this Rule the sitting would have been suspended. Ho referred to the year 1892, which was the date upon which the Unionist Government was defeated, and the right hon. Gentleman spoke
|Aeland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.||Balfour, Rt.Hon.A. J. (Manch'r||Butcher, John George|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Caldwell, James|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Balfour, Rt.Hon.G.W. (Leeds)||Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Bartley, George C. T.||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.|
|Asher, Alexander||Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks||Cautley, Henry Strother|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Bigwood, James||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)|
|Atkinson, Rt, Hon. John||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Cavendish, V.C. W. (Derbyshire|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Boseawen. Arthur Griffith-||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Chamberlain, Rt Hon.J. (Birm.|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Chamberlain, J.Austen (Wore's|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Brown, G. M. (Edinburgh)||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry|
|Balcarres, Lord||Bullard, Sir Harry||Chapman, Edward|
§ against time because some of the supporters of the Government were out of the House. Under this Rule the Speaker would be able to suspend the sitting until the erring sheep might come back. The thing was exceedingly improper and wrong. The First Lord of the Treasury, when he explained the reasons for the introduction of this Rule earlier in the evening, said his proposal would be very operative between 12 and 1 o'clock in the morning, because the Speaker could not then name any one. He referred to himself (the hon. Member) and said he had been guilty of disorderly proceedings on Friday morning.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL
said that this Rule was intended to prevent discussions and observations taking place at the adjournment of the House, when they had an opportunity of discussing matters until one o'clock. Under such circumstances nothing would be easier than for hon. Members opposite to create disorder. This Rule was drawn up in the interest of the Government majority to enable them to work disorder which might be useful to the Ministry. It was an invidious and hateful Rule, which had not the sanction of any Continental assembly, where the President had the power to adjourn the House, and then bring to book the Members who had been guilty of disorder. This Rule showed a bitter feeling towards Irish Members, and it was a cowardly attack by the majority on the weakest section of the House.
§ (8.7.) Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes,222; Noes, 81.(Division List No.32.)
|Charrington, Spencer||Hogg, Lindsay||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Holland, William Henry||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles R.||Hoult, Joseph||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Round, James|
|Crombie, John William||Jones, William(Carnarvonshire||Royds, Clement Molyneaux|
|Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)||Runciman, Walter|
|Crossley, Sir Saville||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Cust, Henry John C.||Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth||Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Lambert, George||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Denny, Colonel||Law, Andrew Bonar||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)||Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)||Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(Isleof Wight|
|Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'mlets. S.Geo||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Lawson, John Grant||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Lee, ArthurH (Hants., Fareh'm||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Leese,Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tynside|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)|
|Dyke, Rt, Hon. Sir W. Hart||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||Lowe, Francis William||Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Fenwick, Charles||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Stock, James Henry|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J. (Manc'r||Macdona, John Cumming||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Finch, George H.||M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||M'Crae, George||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Firbank, Joseph Thomas||Majendie, James A. H.||Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Manners, Lord Cecil||Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower|
|Fison, Frederick William||Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh.||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Mole worth, Sir Lewis||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Flower, Ernest||More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Forster, Henry William||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Foster, Sir Michael(Lond. Univ.||Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thshire||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Foster, P. S (Warwick, S. W.)||Morley, Rt. Hon. J. (Montrose)||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Morrell, George Herbert||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan|
|Gardner, Ernest||Morrison, James Archibald||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Garfit, William||Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)|
|Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)||Muntz, Philip A.||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.||Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne|
|Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets||Parkes, Ebenezer||Williams, Rt. Hn. J. P.- (Birm.)|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Pease, Herbert p. (Darlington)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W.||Wilson, A. Stanley) York, E.R.)|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Pemberton, John S. G.||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y||Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS.Edm'nds||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)|
|Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)||Plummer, Walter R.||Wood, James|
|Grenfell, William Henry||Purvis, Robert||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Randles, John S.||Wylie, Alexander|
|Hambro, Charles Eric||Rankin, Sir James||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Harris, Frederick Leverton||Ratcliff, R. F.|
|Harwood, George||Reid, James (Greenock)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Renshaw, Charles Bine||Sir William Walrond and|
|Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.||Renwick, George||Mr. Anstruther.|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)|
|Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.||Bell, Richard||Burns, John|
|Allan, William (Gateshead)||Blake, Edward||Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton|
|Ambrose, Robert||Boland, John||Cogan, Denis J.|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Broadhurst, Henry||Condon, Thomas Joseph|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Burke, E. Haviland||Crean, Eugene|
|Cremer, William Randal||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||O'Mara, James|
|Cullinan, J.||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||M'Fadden, Edward||O'Shee, James John|
|Delany, William||M'Govern, T.||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Dillon, John||M'Kenna, Reginald||Rea, Russell|
|Doogan, P. C.||M'Killop, W, (Sligo, North)||Reddy, M.|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)||Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)|
|Edwards, Frank||Murphy, John||Roche, John|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Ffrench, Peter||Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Field, William||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Sullivan, Donal|
|Gilhooly, James||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||Thompson, Dr. E C(Monagh'n,N|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)||Thomson, E. W. (York, W. R.)|
|Hammond John||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Whiteley, Geo. (York, W. R.)|
|Jacoby, James Alfred||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Jameson, Major J. Eustace||O'Connor, James (Wicklow.W.||Young, Samuel|
|Jordan, Jeremiah||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Joyce, Michael||O'Doherty. William||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Kennedy, Patrick James||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Sir Thomas Esmonde and|
|Labouehere, Henry||O'Dowd, John||Captain Donelan.|
|Layland-Barratt. Francis||O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)|
|Lundon, W.||O'Malley, William|
The new Standing Order(Power of Speaker to Adjourn House or suspend Sitting), as finally amended, is as follows:—
That, in the case of grave disorder arising in the House, the Speaker may, if he thinks it necessary to do so, adjourn the House without Question put, or suspend any sitting for a time to be named by him.
§ MR. A.J. BALFOUR
It may be for the convenience of the House that I should now state that in the special circumstances of this evening I think it would be hard to ask Members to discuss the questions which are raised by the next proposals, "Amendment of Standing Order 1, and proposed substitute for Standing Orders 4; 5, 6, 7 and 8," with reference to" Sittings of the House "—questions which are, I will not say of the most controversial nature, but which excite much interest. That Amendment would come on rather unexpectedly early. As the House is aware, all the proposals in the print from 3 to 11 inclusive, hang together, and I do not propose to touch them tonight. I shall, therefore. when the House resumes, begin with the Amendment to Standing Order 56, "Committee of Supply." The new Standing Order headed "Committal of Bills" is too important to be taken tonight. I think we may take the new Standing Order with reference to Money Resolutions.
§ MR. BROADHURST (Leicester)
May I ask the Leader of the House what steps he will take to see that the Rules we are now leaving out in regard to "Sittings of the House" do not come on unexpectedly at some future time?