SUSPENSION OF MEMBER. (Hansard, 16 April 1913)

§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)
I beg to move, "That the period of suspension from the service of the House of Mr. Moore do terminate this day."

Mr. FENWICK
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether any communication has been received from the hon. and learned Gentleman named in this Motion in reference to his conduct, and whether he has withdrawn his resistance to the Chair, or offered any apology for his conduct? I would like to know whether any communication has been received by the Government on that point?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
No, Sir, I have had no communication of any sort or kind from the hon. and learned Member. I make the Motion partly because I think that on its merits it ought to be made, and still more because of a communication I received from the Chairman of Ways and Means, who strongly urged me 1972 to take this course. The Chairman of Ways and Means is of opinion that the suspension of the hon. and learned Gentleman for his offence—committed, I think, three weeks ago—is quite ample to meet the admitted gravity of the case. I myself concur in that view. I think it is a very serious thing to deprive a constituency of its representation in this House for a longer time than is absolutely necessary in order to vindicate our traditions and our Rules of Order. The Rule itself was passed under circumstances into which it is not necessary to go now, and it has been left in a form in which it does not prescribe any specific term of suspension. I believe I am speaking accurately when I say that, having regard to the precedents, three weeks is at least as long a term as has ever been considered necessary by the House for a purpose of this sort. The House is most anxious to vindicate the authority of the Chair, and to visit with censure any inpugnment of that authority; but it never displays in these matters a vindictive spirit. Personally, I would suggest that the time during which the hon. and learned Gentleman has been suspended, particularly in view of the feeling of the Chairman of Ways and Means, is quite ample. I hope the House will unanimously adopt that view.

§ Mr. DILLON
I do not rise for the purpose of opposing this Motion, but I think I am entitled to recall to the memory el the House—there are many Members here who were not then in the House—the fact that this Rule was left in an imperfect condition. As a matter of fact this Rule, or set of Rules, was devised by the then Leader of the House (Mr. Balfour), for the purpose of dealing with the Irish Members; and the whole of the Conservative party—I think I am entitled to recall that to their memory—when it was a question of dealing with the Nationalist Members, clamourously supported the right hon. Gentleman in the original proposal, namely, that a Member suspended under this Rule should not be admitted to the House until he had made an apology. We of the Irish party resisted that proposal, and we are perfectly consistent to-day, because we propose to support the Prime Ministers Motion. On the occasion to which I refer the question was discussed at great length. I think for more than one night, and we protested against he proposal made on grounds into which it is quite unnecessary for me to go now, but the result of that discussion was most remarkable and extra- 1973 ordinary. Business was pressing, several nights of debate took place, and finally a Certain amount of division of opinion, as well as my memory serves me, began to show itself, under the pressure of our arguments, amongst the ranks of the Conservative party, in power at that time. The then Leader of the House suddenly dropped the Resolution, and it has never been recurred to, and as a matter of fact the Rule to-day, as you will find it in the Order Book, has a dash at the end of it. It is an imperfect Rule, so that a Member suspended under this Rule was automatically suspended for the whole of the rest of the Session—I am not sure that he was not suspended for the whole of the rest of Parliament. That was not the intention of the then Leader of the House. The original form of this Rule was that a Member was suspended the first time for a week, the second time for a month, and for the rest of the Session if he repeated the offence a third time.
Therefore, I think the Prime Minister is perfectly justified in the course he has taken, because it was the intention of the House, and of the then Leader of the House, originally, that the first suspension should only be, I think, for a week—[An HON. MEMBER: "Ten days."]—or ten days, I am not quite sure, it is many years ago. At all events, it was a strictly limited period, and the Member was to be readmitted if he made an apology. It was on the question of apology that the struggle took place, and, as is often the result, it happened that, although we were then a small minority in the House, we succeeded. I think I am entitled to point out to hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, that if their colleague re-enters the House now without apology, he is enabled to do so, thanks to the struggle which we made in the past. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, I do not rise at all to oppose this Motion. I feel strongly that, while of course it is absolutely essential—and we Irish Members have never denied it—that, with a view to maintaining order and respect for the Chair in this House, a Member should be punished if he defies the authority of this Chair. Yet there must be regard for the rights of constituencies, which are very sacred. There should also be some allowance made for temper. If a man sins through temper and genuine feeling, he ought not to be punished as if he had committed some disgraceful crime. I speak with some little authority on this 1974 subject, because I was the first person in this House on whom the axe fell; I was the first suspended under the Rule. I acknowledge now that it is only just that the right hon. Gentleman should take this action, because when I was suspended under this Rule, although I declined to make any apology, the then Leader of the House (Mr. Balfour) moved that I should be readmitted to the House after a period of two or three weeks. [An HON. MEMBER: "One week."] That is better still. Therefore, the Prime Minister by moving this Resolution is acting upon precedent, and I think he is only acting fairly. I am glad to hear that the right hon. Member who presides so admirably over our discussions in Committee, as everybody who knows him would expect, has asked the Prime Minister to take this course.

Mr. FENWICK
May I be allowed to put a further question to the Prime Minister on this subject? I wish to ask him whether he is aware that the hon. and learned Member, since his suspension, is reported to have publicly stated in Ireland that he deliberately resisted the authority of the Chair and that he would neither withdraw nor apologise to the House, whatever might be the consequences? If that is so, and if the right hon. Gentleman is aware of it, I should feel it my duty to divide the House against this Motion.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I do not know whether the hon. Member has used the expressions attributed to him or not; I have not seen the newspaper. I have proceeded on the footing, as the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. J. Dillon) quite truly said, that the hon. Member has not apologised and is not going to apologise, and I think three weeks' suspension is adequate punishment.

§ Mr. JOHN REDMOND
I do not intend to say more than one word which would he in the nature of an appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for the Wansbeck Division (Mr. Fenwick) not to divide the House. The position is as explained by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. J. Dillon). That is the whole case, and so far as myself and my colleagues on these benches are concerned, we would regret extremely that the action of the House should not be unanimous on this subject. No trace of party bitterness enters into this matter so far as we are concerned. For my part, I am glad of the opportunity 1975 of saying that I make this appeal on behalf of an hon. Member from Ireland, even though we differ politically and strong feeling may arise from time to time. I do, under those circumstances, ask the hon. Member to allow the House to come to a unanimous decision. It never was at any time the intention, whether a man apologised or not, that he should be permanently excluded in consequence of a momentary ebullition of temper or want of judgment. Under those circumstances it would appear vindictive if the House did not come to a unanimous decision in the matter.

§ Mr. JOHN WARD
I have no objection whatever to the Motion that is proposed by the Prime Minister, but I think since I have been a Member of this House I have seen cases where this procedure has not been previously followed. I think I remember the suspension of a gentleman who was then Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Victor Grayson). I believe he was suspended for the whole of the Session. I was wondering whether it is because one has powerful Friends in the House or amongst one of the parties that he was forgotten, and that on this occasion an entirely different method of procedure is adopted. I think at least we ought to make the procedure of the House such that it applies unerringly to all Members, and that it does not depend entirely upon the kind of Friends that the suspended Member has in the House whether he is to be dealt with in this way or not. Otherwise I quite agree with the Motion of the Prime Minister. I should not like it to be understood that it all depends on the amount of assistance or interest the Member suspended has as to whether he is to be readmitted after a fair time to the deliberations of the House. I think there ought to be something certain determined.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
I have really nothing to say after what has been said by the Prime Minister. I may say I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Ward) has just stated. Of course, the position in whch the House stands is due to the fact that the Rule never was completed. Obviously it would be much better if the Rule was completed, and if it was understood that a definite time was prescribed. I may say, speaking for myself, and I am sure for all my Friends, what has been done has not been done on any request of mine or of theirs, but in my opinion it is the course which 1976 ought to be taken, whoever the Member was who committed the offence, and the precedent set to-day will, I am sure, in future be applied.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I agree with what my hon. Friend (Mr. J. Ward) has said as to the Rule, but I do not know why I should be suspected of yielding to any pressure of any sort or kind, although, of course, I would respectfully receive representations from any quarter of the House. I do not know that there is any reason to think that I gave special consideration to representations from any quarter. At any rate, no such thing has happened. While I quite concur with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in regretting that we have not got a fixed code which would avoid the necessity of arbitrary exercise of authority, yet I ask the House to decide this case on its merits and say that the period of suspension is long enough.

§ The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley)
Before the Question is put, perhaps the House will permit me to make an appeal to the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division (Mr. Fenwick) not to divide the House on a question of this kind. I think it is much better that the House should be unanimous in matters of this kind. I need only say I am in full accord with everything the Prime Minister has said in moving this Motion. It is, of course, no personal matter whatever, but purely a matter affecting the House and its authority, and I am sure whoever happened to be in the Chair for the time being would take the same view.

Mr. FENWICK
It seems to me there is a general consensus of opinion that this Motion should be allowed to pass unanimously. I do not want, personally, to stand in the way of a unanimous decision on this subject, but I must take the liberty of saying that I protest very strongly against the deliberate way in which the hon. and learned Member has thrown himself in the face of the entire House, and of the authority of the Chair. I have heard it said again and again that his conduct was such as you might expect from Members of the Labour party. I thank goodness that in my experience not a single member of the Labour party has ever been guilty of such open defiance to the authority of the Chair. As it appears to be the general consensus of opinion in all quarters that the Motion should be allowed to pass unanimously, I hope that 1977 hon. Members will bear in mind that this insult to the authority of the Chair has come from the gentlemanly party and not from the Labour Benches.