§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYWith your permission, Sir, I desire to raise a matter in reference to the order of Debate, because it very nearly concerns the dignity and reputation of this House. I beg to say at the outset that no one recognises more than I do the difficulty of acting under certain circumstances in the office which you hold, and that just as I appreciate the case with which it is possible to criticise actions in your office, so also I appreciate how difficult it is to carry them out under such circumstances a; arose in this House on Wednesday last. To make the matter quite clear to which I wish to refer I will read from the OFFICIAL REPORT: —
Sir. E. Carson: No more business in this House.Hon. Members: So more business.Viscount Helmsley again rose—[Interruption.]Mr. Speaker: It is quite obvious to the House that it is useless to continue. If lion. Members confine themselves to Parliamentary cries. I have no power to treat them as creating disorder. Therefore, in the circumstances, it is quite obvious that the Opposition having determined not to allow further business. I am compelled to say that a state of grave disorder has arisen, and, under the Standing Order. I must adjourn the House until To-morrow."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 13th November, 1012, col. 2054, Vol. XLIII.]Upon this, I submit these considerations. In the first place, if it is not disorderly for a Member or any number of Members to utter such cries as "Divide," or "Adjourn," in such manner as to prevent Debate, the House cannot be in a state of disorder, and therefore you have no power to exercise the Standing Order which rules that in case of grave disorder you may Adjourn the House without Question put. In other words, I submit that the action of certain Members on Wednesday last was either orderly or disorderly. If it was orderly, there was no disorder, and you had no right to Adjourn the House. If, on the other hand, you were right in Adjourning the House, the Members in question must have been guilty of grave disorder, and they would have been amenable to your discipline—that is to say, they might each or all of them have been suspended from the service of the House. I submit, in reference to the apparent discrepancy to which I refer as having crept into your ruling, that it could not possibly be tolerated in any deliberative assembly for Members to drown debate by the continued utterance of cries of any kind whatsoever, and that therefore, if your ruling on the point is to stand, it 34 becomes necessary for the House to protect itself. I confess that on reading the Standing Order I cannot find that any new Standing Order is necessary. I have fortified myself on this matter by reference to so great an authority as Erskine May—
§ Mr. SPEAKERBefore the hon. Member goes further; I did not know he was going to make a long speech on the subject. If he desires to ask me any question on the ruling which I gave, I am quite ready to hear it. If he is anxious to criticise my ruling on that occasion and to condemn it, there is a proper course for him to take, and that is to put a Motion down.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYMay I ask you, Sir, if you will be good enough to reconsider your ruling of Wednesday last on the subject of using ordinary Parliamentary cries in such a manner as to drown Debate, and in such a manner as is condemned by Erskine May in the passage to which I have referred—and which might have been written with special reference to what occurred on Wednesday last? To continue the question Erskine May observes—and I desire respectfully to put this: that in such circumstances it becomes the duty of Mr. Speaker to suspend a Member or Members—I think it is put in the plural—who are guilty of that disorder? Fortified with that authority, I very respectfully ask you whether in the interval you have reconsidered the important ruling that you gave, and whether Members of this House may feel themselves under the protection of the Chair when they desire to address the House?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIn reply to the hon. Member, I have reconsidered my decision, and I still think I was perfectly right. It may be that the words used were not quite as clear as I should have liked to make them, or as the House perhaps thinks they ought to have been on that occasion. But the House will remember that that particular moment was not one on which it was easy or possible to express one's self as clearly or as fully as might be desirable. I think, however, the general meaning of what I said is quite clear, and it is this: that if hon. Members individually indulge in certain cries which are quite Parliamentary, such as "Divide," "Adjourn," "Oh," "No, no," and so forth, that that is not acting in a disorderly way. If, on the other hand, hon. Members combine together for the 35 purpose of interrupting and destroying Debate, then, in my judgment, a position of grave disorder does arise, and it rests with me to consider in each case how best to deal with the situation. If the hon. Member suggests that I should have dealt with the situation on Wednesday last in a way different to that which I did, it is open to him to put down a Motion to condemn my conduct and to condemn the course I took. In my judgment I was right in taking the course I did. Indeed, any other course, such as that suggested by the hon. Member, would not have led to peace, but would have led to even worse disorder than that which occurred.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESMay I venture, Sir, to ask for a ruling on one question of my hon. Friend, and to which you have not alluded in your answer. It was this: Is it possible for a state of "grave disorder" to arise in the House without some Members being disorderly, and without there being the possibility therefore of dealing with the matter in another way to that which you in your wisdom dealt with it?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think the Speaker or the Chairman must be guided by the circumstances of the case. It is well known, I think, that certain interruptions which are perfectly legal in themselves if made by individuals become illegal if made by a combination of individuals. If the hon. Member applies the common law of this country by analogy to the procedure of this House, he will see that certain things which are perfectly orderly in themselves when done in combination and unison by a considerable body become disorderly.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESArising out of that may I ask if there is any remedy under Standing Orders other than which you applied on Wednesday by adjourning the debate for dealing with the conspiracy of the nature which you have just described?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI did not describe it as conspiracy in that sense. That is the gloss the hon. Member puts upon my words. I have applied the general law by analogy to what occurred last Wednesday. The hon. Member is well acquainted with the Standing Orders, and he knows what is the remedy. Whether that remedy should or should not be applied in any particular case must I think rest with the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYMay I ask another question, Sir? Have you considered whether or not the circumstances of Wednesday last constitute, to use the term of my hon. Friend, a "conspiracy, and may I ask if it is not the case that the ruling and dictum of Erskine May, in which he refers not to a Member, but to Members, does not apply precisely to the circumstances which arose last Wednesday, and should obviously have led to the suspension of the ringleaders?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI can only repeat what I have already said twice. Each case must depend upon its own circumstances and of these the Speaker or the Chairman roust be the judge. I say again if the hon. Member is dissatisfied with the decision to which I came there is an obvious-course open to him to take.