§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)I desire to put a question with reference to a matter of order arising out of the suspension of the hon. Member for East Mayo last evening. It seems to me that, by what occurred, the House has got itself into a difficult and extraordinary position. Standing Order 21 is in course of amendment by the House, and the length of time during which suspension shall operate has been omitted, the Order simply declaring that the Member disregarding the authority of the Chair shall be "suspended from the service of the House." I have given consideration to the matter, and it appears to me that, as the Order stands, my hon. friend will be suspended indefinitely until prorogation, or until the period is decided by a Motion carried in the House. If I am right in my interpretation of the rule, it appears to me that it is the duty of the Government to take an early opportunity of submitting a Motion on the subject. 727 As to the character of the Motion, I offer no opinion or suggestion; the responsibility rests with the Government, and I have no desire to relieve them of it. I desire to ask if my interpretation of the existing rule is correct, and if so, I will further ask the Leader of the House what course be proposes to ask the House to take.
§ * MR. SPEAKERSo far as the hon. and learned Member asks his Question in reference to order. I can answer him shortly by saying that his interpretation of the present effect of the Standing Order is correct.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI am prepared to answer the question which the right hon. Gentleman has put to mc. The history of the Standing Order given by the hon. and learned Member is, I believe, absolutely correct. The new Standing Order has not yet been framed, the discussion having been interrupted when the House had decided to omit the old terms of suspension. The House in fact has not done more than pronounce its view that some alteration should be made in the periods for which suspension should be inflicted for breaches of the orders of the House. It has not yet said what the new terms are to be. I think it would be most improper to take advantage of this to inflict on the hon. Member for East Mayo a sentence longer than the Standing Order in process of alteration provided originally, and I have no right to say that the term should be that which the Government propose in their Amendment of the Order. I will not pronounce any view of what sentence in strict Parliamentary ethics the offence deserved, but I think it is quite clear that until the House decides on the final form of the Order there should be no addition to the term as the Order stood at the beginning of the session. I think the House generally will agree that that would be an equitable treatment of the matter, and I will ask it to agree to a Motion to this effect.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDWill this Motion be taken at a time which will allow the possibility of discussion, for, of course, such a Motion will be debatable?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI confess I had thought such a Motion would pass by general consent and would not be taken advantage of to raise debate either on the original ground of suspension, if such should be in order, upon which I offer no opinion, or on the propriety of changing the rule. I think the proper opportunity for the Motion will be when the House is about to rise for the holidays.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDWith the indulgence of the House, may I explain that I did not mean that there should be a discussion of any great length; but I ask that the Motion should not be brought on at a time when there can be no discussion at all. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to bring it on at a reasonably early hour, say, after the Irish Land Bill?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI will consider that suggestion.