§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the Motion standing in the right hon. Gentleman's name on the paper as to the suspension of the hon. Member for East Mayo, whether he cannot see his way to take the Motion on Wednesday or at a time when it will be possible to have a discussion. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman knows that it cannot be taken after twelve o'clock if any hon. Member chooses to object.
§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)May I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether it would be possible to discuss anything but the period of suspension on such a Motion. Could what led to the suspension be debated?
* MR. SBEAKERI should be sorry to attempt to lay down beforehand any general rule as to what is or is not in order until I hear what is said. I can only say that, of course, any discussion of the previous incident or of the action taken on it, either by the Chair or the House, would be out of order.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not think the attitude taken up by the hon. Gentleman is quite reasonable or logical. What the Government have done is this. They found the rule in an incomplete condition. The result of that would be that the hon. Member for East Mayo would be kept out of the House indefinitely. We are quite ready to go back to the status quo ante—to the position in which the hon. Member would have been 844 if the House had not begun to deal with the Rules of Procedure. In that case there could have been no discussion, either upon the length of the sentence or on any other topic connected with the incident. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will see on reflection that this is a perfectly reasonable attitude for the Government to take up, and that we should not be asked to interpolate a debate in the middle of public business of the very first importance. I may incidentally remark that on Wednesday private Members have precedence, but if, unfortunately, this Motion is not carried tonight or tomorrow night I shall put it down for Wednesday after private-Members' Bills.
§ MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON (Belfast, S)May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will postpone the question until after Easter, as many on this side of the House consider the proposal quite-inadequate to the occasion?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI am aware that unanimity does not exist in the House upon this point, but I hope everybody, whether they think the sentence-too long or too short, will acquiesce in our policy of adopting the status quo ante.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDThe right bon. Gentleman seems to be under the impression that he has made some sort of concession to me, or rather to us, and that we, in return, should on our part go back to the status quo ante. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that I did not ask him on behalf of my hon. friend to move any Resolution. I simply pointed out the position, and I said that the responsibility rested with the Government. There I left the matter. I wish now to ask the right hon. Gentleman what will be the exact form of the Motion for the Adjournment for the holidays. Will it be that the House do adjourn after the first Order has been disposed of? I want to know if the business is to be limited to one or two Bills which the Government may choose.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI will put the exact terms of the Motion on the paper tonight.
MR. SWIFT M ACNEILL (Donegal, S.)As I understand the practice, Motions with reference to the suspension or interference with the attendance of Members are Questions of privilege wish to ask whether it is not the fact that all Questions of privilege should be taken the first thing, as a matter affecting not only the privileges of the House but also the individual right of Members.
§ * MR. SPEAKERWhen the House has ordered the suspension of a Member for an indefinite time, there is no privilege.