Sitting of 22 November 1882

QUESTIONS.

  NAVY—THE NAVAL RESERVES.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Secretary to the Amiralty, If it is intended to lay upon the Table of the House a Report of the condition of the Naval Reserves while under the command of H.R.H. the Duke of Edinburgh; if so, when he anticipates being able to place the same in the hands of Members?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, it is only to-day that His Royal Highness has handed over his duties to his successor, and submitted his Report to the Board of Admiralty, and I cannot give an answer to this Question until there has been time to consider the Report.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, he would repeat his Question next week.

  THE EGYPTIAN WAR FUND—COMMITTEE.
  MR. GOURLEYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been called to a circular issued by the Egyptian War Fund Committee asking for public subscriptions for the support of the families of the killed and wounded in the late Egyptian War; and, if he would take into consideration whether provision should not be made with this object rather out of public funds than out of private charity?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, it is rather difficult to answer this Question, especially in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, with whom I have not had an opportunity of consulting. The State has certain rules of service and of remuneration for those who serve the Queen in the Army; and, with regard to cases of wounds and deaths in action, all these things are dealt with regularly and by fixed rules; and I own it appears to me, speaking for myself, to be of the greatest importance that they should be dealt with by fixed rules. I do not know much of the scheme which has been published for a public subscription in support of families; but I am by no

  1859
  means prepared to say, if there be occasion for such a public scheme, that it ought to be superseded by public grants. Whatever is done ought to be done by proper system and method; and unless proper system and method are provided, I do not think the State ought to interfere. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that where many lives have been lost—as, for instance, in the Crimean War—very large sums of money have been raised by public subscription for the purpose of meeting the necessities of the case; and that is a system which has been established by abundant precedents in this country.
  MR. GORSTasked whether the Royal Patriotic Fund was not administered by a Royal Commission, and whether it ought not to be so administered as to make provision for the cases contemplated in the Question of the hon. Member?
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, it was certainly the case that the fund was administered by a Commission created by the Crown. To the other part of the hon. and learned Member's Question, he should prefer not to give a precise answer until he should have had an opportunity of examining into the matter. He suggested that the hon. and learned Member should repeat the Question on a future day.

NOTICE.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)—SPECIAL GRANTS TO SIR GARNET WOLSELEY AND SIR BEAUCHAMP SEYMOUR.
  MR. GOURLEYgave Notice that when the Government moved the special grants to Sir Garnet Wolseley and Sir Beauchamp Seymour, he would call attention to the subjects of these grants.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had already stated that the Government had under consideration what should be done in regard to the Forces generally employed in the way of recognition of their services.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE—THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: Sir, I trust the House will allow me to make an explanation with reference to an incident
  1860
  in the debate last night. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) has used very strong expressions about my continued absence for some time from the House during these discussions. That I have been absent is quite true; but I have been suffering from very severe illness, and I am only convalescent now. Yesterday I was in the House from 4 till 10. I did not sit on the Front Bench, but remained behind, where I could more conveniently rest. At 10 o'clock I felt very much exhausted, and, knowing that I could not take part either in the discussion or in the divisions, I went home. After my departure the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) stated that on some occasion he received a message from the Clerk of the House to the effect that if he should vote he would incur the risk of suspension. ["No!"] My source of information is the report in The Times this morning. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway assumed, and, I believe, asserted that the message on the occasion to which he referred was a message from the Chair. Now, I wish to state, in the most emphatic language that I can use, that I never heard of the incident until I read the hon. and gallant Member's speech in The Times this morning. It is not the practice of the Chair to send messages by the Clerks to any individual Members. They would not take such messages. If the Chairman has to communicate with any hon. Member, he always communicates by note, which is sent through the hands of a messenger. Therefore, I do not understand the story at all. I have no doubt that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway is under the impression that he received some communication from a Clerk at the Table. I cannot question his belief. It is not my duty to defend the Clerks at the Table; but knowing as I do the great ability with which they discharge the duties of their office, and their knowledge of the Rules of the House, I do not in the least comprehend the story. I can only say most emphatically that I had no participation in or knowledge of the matter. I cannot conceive any human being—much more anyone acquainted with the Rules of the House—who could by any possibility-look upon voting as in any degree an act of Obstruction. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock has censured

  1861
  me because I have not taken part in these discussions. Now, I have abstained from speaking with a set purpose, and I know, Sir, that you entirely approve my reserve. Hon. Members have a right to pass criticisms upon the conduct of the Chair; but we think that it would not be proper for the Chairman to engage in any general discussion containing criticisms upon his Office. I should, however, like to refer to a speech delivered last Thursday, during my enforced absence from the House. I should like to make another personal explanation with reference to that speech, the question involved being a question of fact and not an opinion. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) stated that on some occasion I was heard by someone in the Lobby to say that I would have called to Order or suspended—I do not exactly know which—the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) if he had not been a Member of such great influence and connected with The Times newspaper. I should like to assure the hon. Member for Birkenhead—I am quite certain that it is not necessary that I should assure the House—that there is not a particle of foundation for such a statement. I have nothing further to say except that, if I have not given a sufficiently emphatic denial to both stories, I should be very glad to find other words by which to express with still greater strength that there is not the smallest shred or atom of foundation for such statements.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Sir, unfortunately the Chairman of Ways and Means was absent from the House last evening. I had only recently returned from Ireland, and I was not aware whether he was in or out of the House, and I think it right to point out that the incident referred to was only a portion of a short speech I made—perhaps one-fourth, at most, of the speech I made. I by no means brought forward the incident as a charge against anybody, but simply as an argument or illustration. The House last night went solely upon that portion of my speech, and the papers have reported nothing else. It is only fair that I should state this in order to show the House, and incidentally the public, how important this bears upon the incident, and how it was brought forward. There are portions of the speech of the Chairman of Ways and Means which I must correct, and which he said was based
  1862
  upon the report in The Times newspaper. I never said the Clerk at the Table, but I said a clerk. The right hon. Gentleman says I connected the message sent to me with the vote I was about to give. I did not connect it in that way. I did not connect it with the voting in my original statement; but the Secretary to the Treasury put me in rather a difficult position. In attempting to repeat what I had said he emphasized words which I had not emphasized. He fell into one or two mistakes, and I got up to correct him. I then said that the impression left in my mind at the time was that the message was connected with the vote I was about to give. Having made this qualification and explanation, let me remark how much more extraordinary and important the incident becomes. A Clerk at the Table—the third Clerk—comes to me officially—one paper says privately and unofficially—the other papers report what I did exactly say—namely, that it was clear to my mind it was official and could not possibly be construed into a private and unofficial action. I was standing in the Division Lobby, where the names were being taken. He walked up the whole length of the Lobby, and brought me, I did not say a message, but a communication from the Table, and we all know there are more advisers at the Table than the Chairman. The Clerk came up to me and asked me clearly whether I wished to get suspended or not. Now, I knew that since the first batch of suspensions I had done nothing except to vote. It may be that the Clerk wished to communicate to the Chair whether I wished to be suspended, and the Chairman would oblige me. ["Oh! oh!"] Now, that was actually suggested to me by several Members last night and I only state it for the purpose of repudiating it. The only other possible explanation, and the one which struck me at the time, is that if I persisted and continued to vote I should to a certain extent identify myself with the Party who were moving repeated adjournments, and would probably be suspended. That is the natural interpretation, and the one which presented itself to my mind; and though I did not say so in my original statement, I feel bound after the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury to state the facts as they occurred. The Chairman has said that he did not defend the Clerks at the Table,

  1863
  and I say the incident remains wholly unexplained as to why a Clerk at the Table should come up to me as he did. That requires some explanation, and I think the Chairman is responsible for the Clerks at the Table, and as Chairman—
  MR. SPEAKER: It is right that I should point out to the House and the hon. and gallant Member that he is now referring to a communication of an informal kind, I apprehend, which passed between him and the Clerk at the Table outside the House. I do not understand the hon. and gallant Member to assert that the Clerk at the Table brought formally a communication from the Chairman to himself. If that were so the matter would assume a serious aspect indeed.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Sir, when you say outside the House, I ought to explain that it was in the Division Lobby, and during a division, and when the bells were being rung for a division. I do not know whether that spot is outside the precincts of the House or not, but, at the same time, I wish to state the exact circumstances. I certainly looked upon it as an official communication, and would no more have thought it an unofficial communication than if an adjutant on parade came up to an officer, and, having come direct from the Colonel, gave him an order. I cannot look upon it in any other way. But we have now got the disclaimer of the Chairman of "Ways and Means. I, however, did not mean to assert, and did not assert, that the communication came from the Chairman. Still, the circumstance is, as I have already said, very extraordinary, and I am very glad I brought it before the House, as it required explanation, and I am very glad that it has brought forth the statement from the Chairman of Committees that no vote can subject a Member to the penalties of Obstruction. There is only one other point to which I wish to refer. I see that my conversation with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) is reported tolerably correctly in the papers, and I think it only fair to him to say how it occurred. I saw him in the outside Lobby some time before this incident, and, knowing him to be one of the highest authorities on the subject, I went up to him and said—"Mr. Raikes, may I ask you for an opinion?" When he gave it to me he laughed, and said—"I am no authority in the House, and I have no
  1864
  right to give you an opinion; but certainly, if I were Chairman, I should never dream of suspending a Member for mere voting." The Chairman of Ways and Means has given the same opinion to-day; but I think it is only right I should state what the right hon. Gentleman said, and that he did not volunteer an opinion. After having said this, I think the House will agree with me that the facts, as I stated them in my original speech, are the true facts.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the little I have to say I say subject entirely to your authority; but you have signified from the Chair that this is a matter of importance, and I only suggest that it appears to me that there is a most important gap in the explanation which has just been made to the House by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway, which it is very material should be supplied. What I expected to have heard from the hon. and gallant Gentleman was whether the Clerk at the Table, who seems to have conveyed some words to him, did or did not state that those words were a communication from the Chairman of Committees.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I thought, Sir, I had already stated most distinctly that the Clerk at the Table did not make such a statement, and I have never for one moment asserted that he did so. On the contrary, I carefully guarded against it being supposed that he had made such an assertion, and the moment an hon. Member interpreted the words in that sense, I rose in my place and said—"No, not from the Chair, but the Table." If, however, the Prime Minister wishes to know what my impression was at the time, it was that the message had been sent by the Chairman of Committees; but I am quite sure now that the communication did not come from the Chair. Of course, I was in fault for not inquiring upon the point.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE—NINTH RULE (ORDER IN DEBATE).

    [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] [TWENTY-SEVENTH NIGHT.]
    Standing Order (Order in Debate) 28 February 1880, further considered.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that, with the permission of the House, he wished to ask the Prime Minister whether the fact of a Member being suspended from the service of the House would also suspend him from service on Committees on Private Bills?
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the Speaker had last night given a very clear opinion upon this point. For his own part, he had not considered this point; but he would consult the authorities of the House as to whether it was necessary for any special provision to be made in reference to it.
    MR. DODDSsaid, he thought that no difficulty would arise in reference to this branch of the subject, because immediately a Member was suspended from service in Committees another Member would be appointed to take his place.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must draw attention to the fact that there was no Question before the House.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, that, in order to afford an opportunity for discussing the point, he would move to omit the word "and" in line 15.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot move an Amendment which, if carried, will not be consistent with sense.
    Amendment proposed, in line 16, to leave out the words "three times in one Session."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Resolution."
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, it was very important that it should be known whether the fact of an hon. Member being suspended would prevent him from serving on Private Bill Committees.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would consider the matter. He was given to understand that even unsworn Members might serve on Private Bill Committees.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Words omitted.
    MR. GLADSTONErose to substitute the word "first" for "third," in line 17. This was an Amendment of substance, involving the first step in the scale of punishment to which he had referred last night. This was a Rule which he hoped and expected would be only rarely applied, and then under very peculiar circumstances only. It appeared to the
    1866
    Government, however, that when a Member deliberately defied the authority of the Chair, a substantial, and not a merely nominal, penalty should be inflicted upon him.
    Amendment proposed, in line 17, to leave out the word "third," and insert the word "first."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    Question, "That the word 'third' stand part of the Resolution," put, and negatived.
    Word inserted.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he rose for the purpose of taking the sense of the House as to the propriety of altering the Standing Order which had been moved in 1880 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon. His chief objection to the alteration was that no case had been put forward by the Government to warrant any increase in the severity of the Rule. That Rule had been in operation for two years—that was to say during three Sessions—in the course of which it had done excellent service, and on two occasions it had extricated the House from the gravest dilemmas. The first case was that in which the Irish Party had refused to leave the House in order to divide, and had disregarded the authority of the Chair. The effect of this Rule on that occasion had not only been to suspend the offending Members, but to enable the House to agree that night to the Rules of Urgency, without which the Irish Coercion Act could not have been passed. Then he came to the occasion when the Chairman of Committees suspended the whole of the Irish Members en bloc, or rather in two blocks. Had that not been done the second Coercion Bill could not have been passed without a very great expenditure of time. But what difficulty was there in dealing with individual instances of Obstruction? The truth was that the existing Rule had proved itself to be effectual, and, that being undoubtedly the case, the House had the strongest reason for not increasing the penalties of suspension. It mattered little, from the point of view of those who desired the punishment of offending Members, whether the period of suspension was short or long, seeing that the sting of the punishment consisted in the publication of the disgraceful fact that such and such

    1867
    a Member had been suspended. The penalty was already severe enough, and the House was entitled to know why the Government proposed to increase it. If they were to have this savage and ferocious Resolution, it would greatly interfere with and modify very unfortunately one of the greatest qualities of the House of Commons—namely, its inexhaustable patience, the exercise of which had formerly the effect of taming and subduing Members who at first were inclined to be obstreperous, and gradually reducing them to the level of respectable Members of Parliament. The Resolution was evidently aimed at ths Irish Party; but what would have been the result if it had been in force during the last two years? The Irish Members would, by its operation, have been compulsorily absent from the House for a considerable length of time, and their absence would have deprived both the Coercion Bill and the Land Act of much of their authority. If such a Rule as this had been in force in the Session of 1877 the first person to be suspended under its operations would have been the present Secretary to the Treasury; and it was possible, too, that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India might have been subjected to a similar penalty for the course which he took with regard to the Education Bill. They knew very well, however, that the Rule was never intended to apply to the Front Benches. He trusted that the House would refuse to arm itself with the dangerous weapon provided by the Resolution; and he would therefore move to substitute for the word "week" the words "during that sitting of the House."
    Amendment proposed, in line 18, to leave out the words "for one week," and insert the words "during that sitting of the House,"—(Lord Randolph Churchill,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'for one week' stand part of the said Standing Order."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that the noble Lord had spoken of the inexhaustible patience of the House; but the fact was that they were sitting there in the month of November because that patience had been exhausted. He did not desire to refer to the causes or the persons who had led to that exhaustion; but he was sorry to hear from the
    1868
    noble Lord, who might be considered an authority on the subject, that persons who were disposed to try the patience of the House of Commons were not likely to submit to this Rule, but would become worse. No doubt, that was a most unpleasant and desperate prospect. The noble Lord said that, under the former inexhaustible patience of the House, persons were reduced to the level of respectable Members of Parliament; but he submitted, without taking the noble Lord's unfavourable view of the general body of Members, that inexhaustible patience was not a satisfactory remedy for Parliamentary misconduct. His own opinion had been, when hon. Members opposite had brought forward this Rule originally, that it was a matter of regret that its provisions were not more stringent than they were. He did not think much of the noble Lord's arguments—indeed, argument appeared to be thrown away in that quarter. It was the evident sense of the House that when a Member defied the authority of the Chair over and over again, he ought to be subjected to a substantial penalty. The noble Lord asked for proof that the Rule had been ineffective in its operation. The proof the noble Lord asked for was to be found in the history of the House during the last three Sessions. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Where?] Everybody knew it. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No.] Well, if the noble Lord did not know it, he would not argue with him, but would appeal to the experience of the House itself, and of those outside its walls. The noble Lord talked of the disgrace of being suspended being sufficient punishment; but Members had boasted of having been suspended, and had even challenged the authorities of the House to suspend them before they had been suspended. He denied that the question was one of Irish Members merely. Obstruction, he thought, had not proceeded exclusively from Irish Members. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Your Colleagues.] In spite of the elaborate arguments of the noble Lord, it was the opinion of the majority of the House that the Rule, which had worked well, could be advantageously strengthened, inasmuch as it had not prevented five Members from being twice suspended last year, and two being twice suspended during the present year.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that the Home Secretary, as usual, had sought to introduce an element into the discussion which had happily been absent from it hitherto. The noble Lord had made his statement in very temperate language; but the Home Secretary had at once introduced a tone and a temper into the discussion which certainly would not conduce to the calm consideration of the point before the House. He thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman last night had almost given up the whole case himself, because the Prime Minister said be did not rely so much at all upon penalties for preserving the Order of the House. If he did not rely upon penalties for preserving the Order of the House, what was the gist of the reason for increasing the penalties which be himself proposed? He challenged the right hon. and learned Gentleman to name a single case in which an hon. Member challenged the Chairman to suspend him before they were suspended. But the Home Secretary was never at a loss for facts so long as he had such a lively imagination as Nature bad endowed him with. He submitted to the House that it was altogether a complete fallacy with regard to this whole case to make this Rule dependent upon the amount of the penalty. The punishment of suspension was the act of being suspended, and not the time for which a Member was suspended. He could not imagine how any Member could glory in being suspended. He had been suspended in gross, and whenever he was suspended he felt very much like a fool; and if it had been his unfortunate lot to be suspended individually, be would feel very much like an imbecile. Suspension was a disgrace—it was a humiliation. But it was rather a reward and a relief for a Member to be sent away from his Parliamentary labours for a week, so that the punishment would not fall upon the Member, but upon the constituency, which was deprived for a week of the services which that Member might render. It was impossible to say what beneficial effect the services of a Member might have upon even the smallest portion of legislation. He therefore trusted the right hon. Gentleman bad not altogether made up his mind upon this matter. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman showed any case
    1870
    at all in favour of a change of this Rule, and he did not think that the Rule had broken down.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government thought that the existing Rule had failed in the sense of having been insufficient for its purpose, and, in support of that contention, he might point to the number of suspensions that had occurred. In the opinion of the Government these suspensions ought to be extremely rare, and they believed that had the Rule been sufficiently severe, and had its deterrent power been stronger, such cases would have been much fewer than they were. He admitted that last Session was a Session of great excitement and trouble, and, notwithstanding the fact that between 30 and 40 Members were suspended once, and five suspended twice—once for a collective act and once for a sole act, but both acts equally distinct and pronounced in their character—was, in his judgment, proof that there was a great deal too much faction under the Rule; and to have less faction he wanted to have the deterrent power increased. The hon. Member who had just spoken said a Member's suspension was a punishment inflicted on his constitueney. He did not deny that the constituencies suffered, but he did not admit that the hon. Member profited. He was inclined to doubt the proposition that dismissal from the House for a week was a relief and enjoyment to an hon. Member. If the hon. Member chose the week in which he was to go away it might be a relief and an enjoyment to him, but not if the week was chosen for him by the House. That was an inconvenience to the constituencies he did not doubt at all; but the question was whether the constituencies were not bound by the acts of the Members whom they chose to send to the House. If the constituencies found it inconvenient that a Member should be suspended for a week or for a longer period he foresaw this salutary effect, that the-constituencies would themselves assist the House in the maintenance of order, and would convey hints and suggestions to the hon. Member that, while they were very sensible of his zeal, they wished it to be exercised with greater restraint of his judgment. If the arguments of the hon. Member opposite were good as against suspensions for one week, they would be equally good as against all suspensions. But what other method

    1871
    of proceeding was there besides suspension? None that he knew, as imprisonment was not to be thought of. There certainly was the plan of calling upon the Speaker to reprimand an offending Member, but it was quite unavailing. He had himself seen in the case of Mr. O'Connell the miserable failure of that instrument. He recollected O'Connell, who was extremely cautious in regard to the Rules of the House, and as clever as cautious, after receiving the reprimand of the Speaker, repeating in other language every sentiment for the expression of which he had been reprimanded. In many cases, therefore, the instrument to which he was referring would be quite unavailing, and the attempt to use it might expose the Chair and the House to contempt. He knew of no better punishment than suspension imposed in such a manner as to exercise a sensibly deterrent power.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, that if the preceding Rules had not been passed he would have voted with the Government; but he would now support the noble Lord if he went to a division, because the House had already gagged freedom of discussion by means of the clôture, and had imposed severe penalties upon Members who unnecessarily moved the adjournment of the House at Question time. Having passed such severe Resolutions, they might well leave the penalties for Obstruction unchanged. The Irish Members, he thought, had learnt Obstruction chiefly from Gentlemen who now sat on the same Bench as the Home Secretary, for they could recall that two Gentlemen, who were now in the Government, had, to employ a common expression, "put up the Irish Members" to obstruct the Business of the House. He supposed that such penalties would never be imposed upon the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain); but they ought not to forget that Irish Members had the same right as the Representatives of other parts of the United Kingdom. If they aimed at Obstruction proceeding only from a particular portion of the House, they would be doing a great injustice. The Government ought to aim at quelling all Obstruction, no matter from what quarter of the House it might come. If the noble Lord should divide the House he should vote with him.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, the Prime Minister had expressed an opinion
    1872
    that if a constituency should choose to send an objectionable person to Parliament, they would be to blame if he were to be suspended; but he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) would remind hon. Members that an argument of that kind had been scouted by the Government in the debates on the question whether they should admit into the House a certain Member who was not at present allowed to take his seat. He did not know whether, when that question again came up, the Government would stand by the position which the right hon. Gentleman now assumed. He contended that the right hon. Gentleman had failed to show that the existing penalties for Obstruction were insufficient. It should be remembered that recent times had been times of unusual political heat and passion The Session in which the principal suspensions had taken place reminded him of the last Congress in America that met before the Southern Rebellion. Had Ireland been a strong country there might during the passing of the Coercion Act have been an armed rebellion. Representatives of a country so distracted could hardly be expected to remain always cool, and that there were only five different suspensions during the Session to which he was referring, showed that the Irish Members must have restrained themselves as much as possible. With regard to the question of the duration of the punishment of suspension, he asked what Member in the heat of the moment would care whether a week or a month's suspension would be the penalty for his ebullition of temper? The Prime Minister had insisted on the inefficacy of reprimands. There might well be times when men, smarting under a sense of injustice, should fail for once to pay sufficient respect to the monitions from the Chair. How little did Mr. Burke care for a censure on his conduct with regard to Warren Hastings. The fact was, the system of penalties was absolutely inefficient for any useful purpose. The House had fenced itself against Motions for Adjournment, against irrelevant talk, and all that led to heat of temper, and there was, therefore, no excuse for increasing penalties which, however appropriate at other times, were now positively useless.
    MR. GORSTsaid, that he always listened with interest to the speeches of the Prime Minister; but the right hon.

    1873
    Gentleman ought not to allow the Home Secretary, though it afforded much gratification to the faithful Members behind him, to intervene in the debates, because his intervention did not assist in expediting the Business of the House. The Prime Minister met argument by argument; but the Home Secretary never argued, but only denounced. The only contribution to the debate on the part of the Home Secretary was a rather insulting hint that this penal Rule was not intended for Irish Members only. How unjust was such an insinuation. During the whole time that this penal Rule had been in operation not a single instance occurred of its being enforced against any but Irish Members. No such thing had ever been dreamt of by others as disregarding the authority of the Chair. Therefore, the insinuation of the Home Secretary was wholly useless; it was absolutely incorrect, and could serve no other purpose than to create personal feeling and animosity. The Prime Minister argued that it was necessary to increase the severity of the penalties, because of the inefficiency of the Rule in times past. But, then, the right hon. Gentleman ought to consider the very exceptional circumstances of the last and the present Session. The Rule had been enforced against Members from Ireland, because legislation was under the consideration of the House which created the most intense irritation, not only in Members representing Irish constituencies, but in the Irish constituencies themselves. The reason why no English or Scotch Member ever incurred the penalty of suspension was because he knew his constituents would be extremely angry if he did. But that was not the case with the Irish constituencies, because, if the the House went so far as to expel one of their Members, they would be sure to re-elect him. Then, the re-arrest of Davitt, and the manner in which the Home Secretary answered the Questions put to him on the subject, so excited the passion of Irish Members that they committed an act which they no w regretted, and which there was not the slightest danger of their repeating, unless, indeed, the Home Secretary continued to make speeches. The Prime Minister made light of the penalty inflicted upon the constituency by the suspension of its Representative. It was the disgrace of suspension, and not
    1874
    merely the time during which the suspension was to last that they should look to as a deterrent on the Member. But the injustice to the constituency was very much enhanced if the suspension was to last. On this point the opinion of the Prime Minister was very different now from what it had been in 1880, when the late Government proposed the Rule. On the Question whether suspension from the service of the House should include voting by the Member suspended, the right hon. Gentleman said that if this was a question of the amount or sufficiency of the punishment inflicted upon the Member he would give him a larger punishment, if necessary, but he was reluctant to punish the constituency; there were many cases in which the constituency might have a strong and special interest in particular measures, and in which they might suffer from the suspension of their Member. And the right hon. Gentleman added that he was "at present" so strongly under the distinct impression that the disablity of voting was in a large degree a punishment inflicted on the constituency for an offence for which they were not responsible, that he hoped the subject might receive the careful consideration of the Government.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he was very much disposed to agree with his noble Friend as to its being unnecessary to alter the Standing Order at all; but, as the Government had taken a different view and the House had so far approved it, he thought they ought to consider the question before them. The Home Secretary had a little underrated the value and strength of the Standing Order as originally framed. It was clear that suspension for a week, and the possibility of further suspension had had a very deterrent effect, for it had been admitted that under the operation of the Standing Order no Member had been suspended a third time. On the other hand, it was also admitted that Members had been suspended twice, and it appeared that suspension for the remainder of the Sitting was not sufficient, as there had been an instance of a Member who was suspended five different times. Therefore, the proposal of the Government for suspending offenders for a week had something to be said in its favour. But beyond that they ought to remember that the concessions made

    1875
    by the Government in the course of these discussions had been considerable. They had already struck out possible constructive Obstruction, and he was not without hope that collective Obstruction would also be got rid of, and in that way safeguards might be inserted in the Standing Order which would go far to reconcile him to the proposed extension of the penalty of suspension from one Sitting to a week. He had to regard the whole of the concessions suggested by the Government, and, looking at them from the beginning to the end, he thought them very considerable indeed. His noble Friend admitted that these concessions had received a cordial recognition at the hands of the House. His noble Friend admitted that cordial recognition in words, but not in acts. He was disposed to go a step further, and to give them a cordial recognition in acts by accepting the change in the first instance. The alteration of what he might call the code of penalties was not overstrained, and they might hope that the deterrent effect to which the Prime Minister had referred would be observable in the future, as they had seen it observed in the past, with reference to suspension for a week. It was from these motives, though reluctantly, that he must oppose the Amendment.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he was suspended on one occasion on the recommendation of the Speaker, and, to a certain extent, he felt a personal punishment in consequence, because, in the course he had taken, he exhibited a want of judgment with regard to the line of argument he ought to pursue. On the other hand, if, instead of being reprimanded by the Chairman and the House for conduct which deserved the reprobation of the House, he had been suspended, as a large number of Members had been during the present Session as they and he believed without any cause whatever, he believed he would not have felt the slightest degradation, or considered himself punished by the decision of the House. He believed that under the existing Rules there had been nothing during the last two Sessions of Parliament which could be properly termed Obstruction. The whole of the opposition to the Government measures was justified by the facts of the case. It was conducted by a number of Irish Members, who really knew the facts,
    1876
    whereas the great majority knew literally nothing of the subject. If collective suspensions were allowed the effect would be to give the Government the power to silence a small Opposition such as they witnessed recently in the cases of the South African and Flogging in the Army Bills, and by that means to pass through the House obnoxious measures. He held that what was called Obstruction was not substantially Obstruction at all, and that instead of making the Member incur penal consequences, he should get the thanks of the House for his exertions and zeal in favour of what he considered he was convinced was right.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought the House might speedily approach the end of the discussion if the Government would only intimate their intention of giving up the attempt to deal with collective Obstruction as they had already abandoned that regarding the constructive action of Members. If the Resolution was designed to apply to individual punishment only he did not think the penalties were too severe.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 24: Majority 77.—(Div. List, No. 390.)
    Mr. GLADSTONE, in proposing the omission of the words after the word "week" to the word "place," and the substitution of the following:—"On the second occasion for a fortnight, and on the third or any subsequent occasion, for a month," said, that the words "or any subsequent occasion" were adopted from an Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan).
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 18, to leave out the words after the word "week" to the word "place," in line 22, inclusive, in order to insert the words "on the second occasion for a fortnight, and on the third, or any subsequent occasion, for a month,"—(Mr. Gladstone,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Standing Order."
    MR. PARNELLsaid, it was very desirable to know what action the Government intended to take with regard to an Amendment which stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), because it

    1877
    was important that the House should at once see what the ultimate shape of the Resolution would be. Certain hon. Members had, from the beginning of these debates, regarded as a vital question, upon which the whole of the Resolution must turn, whether when it became a Standing Order it could be used against a body of Members, or section of the House, or only against a single Member, as originally contemplated. It was not unreasonable that a Member who deliberately and wilfully obstructed the Business of the House, when notice was taken of his conduct by the Speaker or Chairman, should be suspended for a week; but the case was altogether different when it was made possible that, not a single Member, but a whole Party, should be suspended for a week because it might happen that a suspension of a Party en bloc might take place when an important measure in which they were especially interested was under the consideration of the House; a Coercion Bill might be before the House, though he hoped they had seen the last of Coercion Bills. He feared, however, they had not heard the last of such measures. If a Coercion Bill were before the House, during the suspension of the Irish Party, the arguments of these Representatives might have no chance of materially influencing the opinion of Parliament and the country. They therefore viewed with jealousy any power which might enable the Prime Minister to deprive Ireland of such representation. If the Government were going to give up this power of collective suspension, the abuse of which Irish Members feared so much, he, for one, would be much indisposed to vote against any proposal of the Prime Minister.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was willing to acknowledge that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had made an extremely fair speech. He admitted that there was a connection between the Amendment before the House and the subject of collective suspension. The Government had carefully considered the suggestion made last night by the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) about collective Naming. That suggestion was made in such a spirit that the Government felt bound to give it a careful and impartial consideration. He was bound, however, to state that the Government did not see its way to giving
    1878
    up absolutely the power of collective Naming. It would be out of Order to discuss the reasons for that conclusion, as the question was not before the House. But he felt sure that the House, and even the hon. Member for the City of Cork, would see the force of those reasons when they came to be stated. But the Goverment thought they could make an important step in that direction by adopting a suggestion which he understood to have been thrown out by the hon. Member for the City of Cork in a speech of his a day or two ago, to the effect that disregard of the authority of the Chair should be put upon a different footing from abuse of the Rules of the House by Obstruction or otherwise, and that collective Naming should be confined altogether to cases of disregard of the authority of the Chair. That was an important change, and the utmost change to which the Government could consent. He did not mean to strike out any words of the Proviso of which he had given Notice, but to introduce into that Proviso words confining its operation to cases of disregard of the authority of the Chair.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was very glad to acknowledge on his own part, and also, he thought, for other Members, the concessions of the Government on the subject of penalties, the excessive nature of which had formerly elicited from him somewhat strong language. He rejoiced that the Government had listened to the suggestions made, not only from the Opposition side, but, he believed, from all parts of the House, upon several points of this Resolution. First of all, constructive Obstruction was gone altogether. He also rejoiced to find that the Government had found it absolutely impossible, consonant with justice, to insist upon collective Naming, except in particular cases where the authority of the Chair was distinctly disregarded. He was very grateful to the Government for having considered that part of the Resolution which related to the suspension of a Member after a third offence for the remainder of the Session, and had materially mitigated that severe penalty. He was quite content with the scale now proposed by the Government—namely, a week, a fortnight, and a month; and his belief was that this concession, made in the interests of justice, would meet the general wishes of the House.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. GORSTsaid, that, on behalf of his noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill), he rose to move the insertion of words which would enable suspended Members to vote in divisions, although they were debarred in other respects from taking part in the Business of the House. The Secretary to the Treasury and the Prime Minister himself, in 1880, expressed opinions in favour of his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the foregoing Amendment, to add the words "Provided always, That the words 'service of the House' in this Resolution shall not be construed as excluding any such Member from voting in any Division."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he thought in 1880, and still thought, there was a great deal to be said in favour of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member, and he had referred the question to the consideration of the Government. He had pressed the topic on the late Government, though he did not then move an Amendment. But he wished the hon. and learned Gentleman had imitated his conduct as well as adopted his opinions. The Government had desired to adopt the Amendment; but after careful consideration they found they could not adopt it. It was a practical question. Voting was so mixed up with other matters that they could not sever them. A Member must go out of the House in voting, and he must re-enter the House after voting; and if he were in the House, and in his seat in the House, it was manifest that there were many modes of influencing the proceedings of the House in which he might take part without speaking in a debate. They could, for instance, join in those manifestations of opinion and feeling which were necessary incidents of the existence of a deliberative Assembly like the House of Commons; and he might, even in conjunction with others, materially resist the authority of the Chair. Thus a state of things would be brought about which would be intolerable.
    1880
    Hon. Members would therefore see that the Amendment was impracticable, and broke down, in its spirit and effect, the operation of this Rule, and that the conclusion to which the Government had arrived was just and reasonable.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, he would remind the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that he had once more moved an Amendment exactly contrary to that which he moved in 1880. He supposed the hon. and learned Member would say, as he had said the previous night, that he voted inadvertently; but he was going to quote, as against that theory, the speech he made on that occasion. The hon. Member then said—
    "He was going to vote for the Government, not because they were in a majority, for during the time he had sat in the House of Commons he had always expressed his independent opinions; but he was going to support them because on this occasion he believed the Government were entirely right."
    MR. GORST: That speech was not made in support of this proposition.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, it illustrated the motive on which he gave what he called an inadvertent vote.
    MR. ONSLOWsuggested that a suspended Member should not be prevented from serving on a Private Bill Committee.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would accept the suggestion.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he was opposed to allowing a suspended Member to vote, believing that such a deprivation might bring home to his constituents the conduct of their Member, and make them more careful in future in the selection of their Representatives.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan), although he had been only one Session in the House, had more than once interposed in these debates with an assurance that even the Prime Minister, after having sat in the House for 50 years, had scarcely exceeded. If the hon. Member had studied the question of Procedure with any care he would have discovered a radical difference between the Standing Order before the House and that proposed by the right hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote). Whatever might have been the value of such an Amendment as this proposed in 1880,

    1881
    it was considerably increased now that the penalties had been increased. With regard to the present Amendment, it was not in the least necessary that a Member should enter the House in order to vote.
    MR. GLADSTONE: He must hear the Question read.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: He might hear the Question read standing below the Bar, and so not be within the House. Recollecting what the Prime Minister had stated in March, 1880, and knowing what celebrity he had obtained for adhering to every opinion he had expressed at that period, he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have receded from his opinion as expressed in 1880.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 138: Majority 121.—(Div. List, No. 391.)
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he now proposed to move the insertion of a Proviso in order to give effect to a feeling justly entertained with respect to the service of a suspended Member on a Private Bill Committee. It was evident that they ought not to run the risk of breaking up a Private Bill Committee, and that risk could not be satisfactorily avoided by appointing a new Member to serve on the Committee, because that new Member when called upon to do a judicial act would only hear a part of the evidence. It should also be remembered that as service on a Private Bill Committee could hardly be regarded as in the nature of a privilege, it could not be said to weaken the force of the instrument which the House had put in operation for checking any refractory Member. He therefore moved the insertion of the following Proviso to meet the case:—
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the foregoing Amendment, to add the words "Provided always, That discharge from the service of the House shall not exempt the Member so discharged from serving on any Committee for the Consideration of a Private Bill, to which he may have been appointed before his suspension."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked what would happen if a suspended
    1882
    Member were charged, as Chairman, with the duty of bringing up the Report of a Private Bill Committee?
    MR. DODSONsaid, in that case another Member of the Committee would bring up the Report.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he was satisfied with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. WARTONsuggested that the word "suspension" should be substituted for "discharge" in the proposed Proviso, the latter being too strong a word, and not the exact equivalent of the former.
    COLONEL STANLEYbegged to support the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was willing to agree to the suggestion.
    MR. PARNELLasked whether the exemption should not be extended to all Select Committees as well as to those on Private Bills?
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could not accede to that. There was a positive reason for retaining a particular Member on a Private Bill Committee—namely, that without him injury would be inflicted on private interests, and great inconvenience would ensue.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made, by adding, at the end of the foregoing Amendment, the words—
    "Provided always, That suspension from the service of the House shall not exempt the Member so suspended from serving on any Committee for the Consideration of a Private Bill, to which he may have been appointed before his suspension."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. PEELsaid, he rose to move an additional Proviso of which he had given Notice—namely,
    "That if the Session closes before the term of such suspension has expired, the Member so suspended shall not be re-admitted to the House unless by a Vote of the House in the following Session."
    His desire, he said, was not to aggravate the punishment of an offending Member, but to take care that the Rule, which the noble Lord opposite had described as a tremendous Rule, should not be a mere brutum fulmen. The Prime Minister had indicated the possibility of many new forms of disobedience to the Chair being developed; and the hon. Member

    1883
    for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) had hinted at the unexplored regions yet unoccupied by the pioneers of Obstruction. For himself, he thought that the happy hunting ground of the future Obstructor would lie in the stages of the Appropriation Act near the close of the Session. They had had numerous instances of Members being suspended within a few days of the end of the Session. The penalties proposed to be inflicted under that Rule were graduated—for a first offence, the suspension was to be for a week; for the second, a fortnight; and for the third, a month. His contention was that a Member who had been repeatedly suspended, and had at last incurred the final penalty of a month's suspension, ought not to be released from the sentence passed upon him by the House simply by the accident of the Session terminating, perhaps, within three days after the sentence had been awarded. He knew that precedents told much the other way; but he wanted the House to create precedents for the maintenance of its own internal discipline. Towards the close of the Session Members were apt to lose their temper, and to indulge in abuse of other Members or Ministers, or in other irregularities which were a growing scandal to the House. He wished to stop that as much as possible; and he thought it would have a deterrent effect if an offending Member knew that the sentence passed upon him would not necessarily terminate with the expiration of the Session, but that at the commencement of the following Session he should not be re-admitted to the service of the House without a formal vote of the House being obtained for that purpose. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Proviso.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the foregoing Amendment, to add the words "Provided, That if the Session closes before the term of such suspension has expired, the Member so suspended shall not he re-admitted to the House unless by a Tote of the House in the following Session."—(Mr. Peel.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he hoped that the Government would not accept an Amendment for which there was no necessity. Even the culprits in the Clock Tower, whenever there were any,
    1884
    were liberated at the end of the Session. He thought there was some danger that, in its anxiety to remove Obstruction and maintain its own dignity, the House would become vindictive in its punishments. This Amendment, he thought, would make the Rule of that character, and would create a state of things which would not be creditable to those concerned. The Amendment could not be fairly argued on any ground of necessity.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he would suggest, if the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Peel) were agreed to, that a Proviso should be inserted to the effect that during the Recess the hon. Members so suspended should also be placed under police supervision.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that, while appreciating the motives with which the Amendment was brought forward—namely, to give efficacy to the Rule, it was one which the Government could not accept. If they adopted the Amendment, they would come across a great principle of Parliamentary practice—namely, the lapse of all proceedings of a Session. With the exception of personal appointments and Standing Orders, nothing whatever in the Procedure of one Session was carried over to another Session; and he should not like to propose that the suspension of hon. Members, which was a minor matter, should be an exception. Besides, all through these Rules their object had been to substitute definite for indefinite terms of suspensions; and he was not disposed, on a minor matter, to make a precedent for continuing the action of the House from one Session to another. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. GLADSTONEthen moved to add to the Resolution the words—
    "Provided also, That not more than one Member shall be named at the same time, unless for disregarding the authority of the Chair, nor unless several Members, present together, have jointly committed the act for which they are named."
    This Proviso would, he hoped, show that the Government had endeavoured impartially to meet the views of those who objected to collective Naming. The chief objection to collective Naming was that mistakes might be made, and

    1885
    that an innocent, and perhaps even an absent, Member might be Named. The Government felt the force of the objection; but they thought that, among other things, their Proviso that there should be a disregard of the authority of the Chair would effectually preclude the possibility of such a mistake. The introduction of these words would be equivalent, in a case of collective Naming, to previous warning. Hon. Members might be abusing the Rules of the House, but yet not disregarding the authority of the Chair; and if the Speaker or Chairman had to give directions or admonitions to those particular Gentlemen in the first instance, those directions would enable anyone to say whether a Member was guilty or not. Then they would fix the mind and eye of the Speaker or Chairman on the individuals, and remove, humanly speaking, all possibility of error in designation. But, it might be urged, why not abandon collective Naming altogether? That he was not prepared to do, for, though there was but one instance conspicuously on record of collective misconduct, the Government were not willing to stimulate the ingenuity of those who might desire in future to contrive disorderly joint action with impunity. And he need not say that offences which, if committed by individuals, would be punished could not be allowed to pass unnoticed merely because several Members were the joint offenders. On the night when 27 Members were suspended it had been his fate to begin the same sentence seven times, and as often to be interrupted at the same point. The interruption was disorderly, and was punished by suspension in each case; but if three or four Members were to interrupt simultaneously a still grosser disorder would have to be allowed, unless resort was had to collective Naming. Besides, if collective Naming were abolished, how would it be possible to conform to the terms of the Resolution already adopted that every Member should be Named immediately after the commission of the offence? On the occasion of the suspension of 27 Members there would have been 27 separate divisions in the Committee, followed by 27 more in the House, making 54 divisions in all. It would be difficult, he believed, to introduce a clause which would make it clear in what sense the 53rd or 54th of those
    1886
    divisions corresponded with or fulfilled the Rule which they had justly and wisely laid down that a Member should be Named immediately after the commission of the offence. Again, he would ask, was the 27th or any other Member bound to remain in the House while all the others were being punished? They had no means of making him remain, and he believed that if they did not retain collective Naming in those particular cases they would get into hopeless confusion. In fact, it would practically come to this—that one would be punished for the collective act and the others would go free. They would thus be placed in the difficulty of selecting a Member to punish, which would be a most invidious task, especially as the Members who had taken part had probably equally offended against the Rules of the House. Looking at the matter practically, they had felt it their duty to meet, as far as possible, the desire which existed, and which they themselves shared, to reduce to the very lowest point this collective Naming; but they could not be responsible for withdrawing from the House the opportunity of saying whether it was willing to run the risks of allowing not only collective disorder, but collective disregard of the authority of the Chair, to pass with impunity. He therefore begged to submit this Amendment to the House.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the foregoing Amendment, to add the words "Provided also, That not more than one Member shall be named at the same time, unless for disregarding the authority of the Chair, nor unless several Members, present together, have jointly committed the act for which they are named."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out all the words after the word "time." He considered that the punishing of Members collectively would act unjustly to Members, and, at the same time, would be disrespectful to the constituencies which those Members might represent. Even if the consumption of time were as great as the Prime Minister represented it would be, it would not be so great an evil as the disfranchising of constituences in the wholesale way that was proposed.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
    To leave out all the words after the word "time," in line 2, to the end of the proposed Amendment.—(Mr. Arthur Arnold.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'unless' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, the Prime Minister had endeavoured to minimize the proposal of the Government to a very great extent, and he was very grateful for the points he had already yielded. He felt bound, however, to look beyond the present moment and estimate what might happen in the future. The 1st Resolution then proposed gave to a majority the right of silencing a minority; but that proposal had been modified, and he must look at what was likely to happen in the future under that Rule. In 1872 he remembered an occasion when the Turnpike Acts Continuance Bill was before the House of Commons. The Select Committee on the Bill, with Lord George Cavendish in the Chair, proposed an Instruction that highway districts should be made compulsory throughout the whole of England. Many who sat on this side of the House thought the proposal such an innovation, and so opposed to the wishes of the agriculturist community generally, that they used every Form of the House to defeat the proposal, and the result was that one day at 4 o'clock the noble Lord withdrew his proposal. He believed that the Prime Minister, who was at the time also Prime Minister, raised his powerful voice against the noble Lord's proposal. In the hands of a future Speaker and Chairman, with the Government proposal before them, such a Bill as the one he had referred to would have been passed, though strongly opposed by many Members of the House. ["No!"] He heard some hon. Members say "No!" but did they forget what had taken place with regard to the flogging proposals in the Army Discipline Bill and on the Public Works Loan Bill, when the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) so strongly opposed his Predecessor in Office? Believing that the proposal of the Government would prevent hon. Members from doing their duty, and that it would hamper minorities greatly in their stand against bad legislation, he
    1888
    should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSobserved, that the only argument of the Prime Minister in favour of collective suspension was that it would save time. But the right hon. Gentleman did not venture to assert that great injustice might not be done under the Rule. In his opinion, there was no objection to Naming Members collectively; but he could not see why the vote for their suspension should not be taken separately. He supposed it was of no use to appeal to the House; but with the exception of the question of time, ho knew no reason why they should not show some deference to the strong feeling on this subject which undoubtedly existed below the Gangway.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he did not want to have any more wrangling with the Government on this point—he had had about enough already—but he wished to make a suggestion to the Prime Minister. He had some little fear whether the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's Proviso would not make collective suspension possible without the whole of the Members Named having disregarded the authority of the Chair. He therefore suggested that that part should be omitted, and that other words should be inserted, so that the Proviso should run simply—
    "Provided that not more than one Member shall be named at the same time, unless several Members present together have jointly disregarded the authority of the Chair."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that if the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) would withdraw his Amendment, he would be happy to accept the suggestion of the noble Lord.
    MR. ONSLOWunderstood the object of the Resolution to be to punish a Member or Members for offences committed at some one Sitting of the House. He feared that that was left in some ambiguity by the present phraseology of the Rule; and in order to prevent some future occupant of the Chair from punishing a Member at one Sitting for an offence committed on a previous occasion, he thought the words "during that Sitting of the House" should be inserted in the Resolution.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not think that there was any fear of the Resolution being construed in the way suggested by the hon. Member for

    1889
    Guildford (Mr. Onslow). He was glad that the Government bad accepted the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, which would remove a latent ambiguity in the Resolution. He would suggest that the hon. Member for Salford should withdraw his Amendment in order that it might be accepted. The hon. Member would again be able to raise the question now under debate. With regard to that question, he still retained the opinion that there was danger in permitting a number of Members to be Named collectively.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsuggested that the Proviso might be simplified by the omission of the words "present together."
    MR. WALTERsaid, it seemed to him that there were two kinds of Obstruction—one negative and the other positive—and that they required different treatment. When a number of Members, whether few or many, sat in their places when the Speaker called for a division, it was clearly a case of negative Obstruction, and there could be no mistake whatever in dealing with a case of that kind. But when positive Obstruction took place, as would happen if the Prime Minister were interrupted in his speech, there was a possible danger of mistake. In such cases there might be a difficulty in identifying the guilty Members amid the disturbance. He thought that these two different cases of Obstruction required to be dealt with in a totally different manner. Negative collective Obstruction, as where a Member or Members refused to leave the House on a division, he should like to see dealt with collectively; but, in his opinion, there still remained some ground for doubting the expediency of including in a collective vote several Members alleged to be guilty of positive Obstruction.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsupported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford. In his opinion, there was much force in the argument that by taking a collective vote an independent, conscientious Member might be compelled to allow the guilty to escape in order that the innocent should not be punished. He thought there was some fear also that a doctrine of constructive Obstruction might be set up by which a Member would be punished at one Sitting for his conduct on former occasions. The objections to the Amendment were serious,
    1890
    and he wished the Prime Minister would see his way to relieve the House from the difficulty.
    MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he did not think the words proposed by the Prime Minister really expressed his views, and regarded the instance furnished by the Secretary to the Treasury of a number of Members pulling the Chairman or the Speaker out of the Chair as the only instance yet given of joint or collective action. The instances relied on by the Prime Minister of Members not rising in their places, or sitting in the House when ordered to leave, were really separate actions, unless they could show that the Members were acting in concert. He hoped the Proviso would not be adopted without considerable modification.
    BARON HENRY DE WORMS,as they must choose between two evils, thought that the lesser was to be found in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford. It was admitted on all sides that there was a possibility of mistake arising out of the question of collective Naming. It was surely not unreasonable to ask that the same Rule should apply to the suspension of Members as applied to criminal trials. A memorable case had just concluded in Ireland; but the prisoners had not been tried together. Why should Members of Parliament be placed at a greater disadvantage? The Amendment, however, looked as though the Government wanted to whitewash the proceedings of last Session.
    MR. J. HOLLONDsaid, the House was placed in a very awkward position from the fact that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford proposed to omit some very valuable words. If Members offended jointly, he could not see why they should not be punished jointly; but there was no reason why a joint vote should be taken. He was prepared, if the Amendment of the hon. Member was negatived, to move some such words as these at the end of the Prime Minister's Amendment—
    "In such case the names of such Members should be put from the Chair separately, and the provisions of the fourth Resolution as to the taking of divisions should apply."
    MR. NEWDEGATEobserved, that the time might come when the House would have to decide the most important issues, one way or the other, by majo-

    1891
    rities of 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10. He was unwilling to believe in abuses; at the same time, this House should guard its action against the suspicion of abuse, and he thought that the whole system of collective punishment would be liable to the imputation that collective punishment had been inflicted for Party and political purposes. The loss of time, under the present Rule, in Naming individuals guilty of offences against the authority of the Speaker or the good order of the House, would be infinitesimal when compared with the possible discredit which might follow upon abuse in the collective punishment of Members. He most sincerely hoped, therefore, that, whether modified or not according to the suggestions of the hon. Member (Mr. Hollond), the offences of Members would be treated individually as offences were brought before the tribunal of a Court of Law, and the punishment individually awarded.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was sorry that the discussion had been kept up so long; but it was one of vital importance to Members from Ireland. The only valid reason which the Prime Minister had suggested for the views of the Government—namely, the saving of time—was disposed of by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Hollond), who suggested a method by which delay would be almost entirely prevented. The Prime Minister was, in reality, fighting a shadow when he attempted seriously to make such a state of things as the Speaker being pulled from the Chair by a number of hon. Members the basis for legislation. If this proposal were accepted it would be in the power of the Chairman or the Speaker practically to disfranchise a large number of the constituencies of Ireland. By the proposal of the Government a number of Irish Members might be suspended and their constituencies disfranchised for a week, a month, or for the remainder of the Session, while important Irish Business was being transacted. Why should the Government persist in their present course, in spite of the almost unanimous opinion of Members on that (the Opposition) side, and the opinion of very many of their own supporters?
    MR. WARTONsaid, it was quite evident that the House did not want for the future to vote for such a thing as the collective suspension of 16 Members,
    1892
    some of whom might be innocent, while it was admitted that there might be a necessity for the joint Naming of several Members. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Hollond) was, therefore, a good one, and might be added with advantage to the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, that the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken had recommended the Government to make further concessions by adopting the suggestion of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Hollond). But what assurance had the Government, if they did accept that suggestion, that the House would support them after all? It appeared to him the Government in this matter had accepted suggestions from the House in a most conciliatory spirit, and had gone from point to point to meet the views of the House; but it would appear that was of no avail with hon. Gentlemen opposite. ["No, no!"] He meant as regarded what the Prime Minister thought necessary for maintaining the authority of the Chair. They must remember that the Government, in proposing this Resolution, had a very difficult and disagreeable task to perform. It could not be agreeable to the Government to insist upon these stringent Rules, which, nevertheless, they believed to be necessary for maintaining the authority of the Chair. If there was a feeling in the House with regard to the danger that might arise from abuse of the proposed Rule, they must not forget the danger also from continued disregard of the authority of the Chair, a danger of which they had had experience. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) said that it was only Members below the Gangway, and an hon. Member opposite said that it was only Irish Members who would fall under the Rule. Now, if he sat below the Gangway he would repudiate the suggestion that it was only Members in that quarter who would disregard the authority of the Chair.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYobserved that the proposal of the Government involved this manifest inconvenience—that the House would have no alternative but to find all guilty or to acquit all. That was a principle which would not be found to exist in any country in the world.
    MR. PARNELLsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had lectured the Government for having given concessions to that side of the House.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he did not for a moment censure or criticize the Government for the concessions they had made. His argument was that the concessions of the Government entitled them to consideration. He shared the view of the Government with regard to these concessions.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the Government were entitled to consideration on account of the concessions they had made. But what he contended was that so little remained of the objectionable features of the Rule, and they were so liable to misconception, that they ought to be got rid of altogether. The only example which had been given by the Prime Minister as to the necessity for this Rule was the occasion of the suspension of a large number of Members last Session for refusing to leave the House when a division was called. He admitted that if it were apprehended that such a case as that were likely to occur again, the House would be justified in arming the Speaker with power to suspend the Members in question collectively; but he put it to the Government whether it was worth while to retain in the Rule a provision of this kind, which was liable to abuse and misconstruction, in order to guard against such a remote contingency as that? These Rules had been brought forward for the purpose of enabling the House to transact its Business, not for the purpose of enabling the Government of the day to get rid of a minority of its opponents summarily; and even if such an occurrence as that recited were to take place again, it would form a very small impediment to the transaction of Business in comparison with the amount of time which had been wasted in the discussion of this Rule, and the heat which had been evoked in this discussion. He therefore appealed to the Government to reconsider whether they could not give this further concession in response to an opposition to the Rule which he submitted had not exceeded the bounds of fairness, and which had been conducted with good taste? He regarded the Rule as now amended with the greatest possible suspicion and misgiving; and
    1894
    he feared very much that some day or other the Chairman of Committees would be tempted to use it in a manner never contemplated by Parliament.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 127; Noes 73: Majority 54.—(Div. List, No. 392.)
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 2 of the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "for disregarding the authority of the Chair, nor unless."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 2 of the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "committed the act for which they are named," in order to insert the words "disregarded the authority of the Chair."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, to add, at the end of the proposed Amendment, the words "disregard the authority of the Chair."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
    MR. ONSLOWproposed, after the word "disregarded," to insert the words "during that sitting of the House." It appeared evident from the Speaker's ruling on a previous occasion, as well as by an answer given by the Speaker to a Question put by him on July 3, that it was possible for Members, when there was an evident combination for the purpose of obstructing debate, to come within the Rule. Under those circumstances a distinct limitation should be put upon it. It was impossible to say that some future Speaker might not think that offences which had been continuing for some time had culminated on a certain occasion, although that offence had been committed on several days previously. The same objection applied to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who might again entertain that view.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to insert after the word "disregarded," the words "during that sitting."—(Mr. Onslow.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'during that sitting' be there inserted."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the speech of the hon. Member was one of those

    1895
    which almost made him despair of transacting the Business of the House, for he had made a long citation which had not the slightest reference to the question. They had no concern with Obstruction in the Proviso they were discussing, because from the first they had separated Obstruction from disregard of the authority of the Chair; and the mixture of these things existed only in the mind of the hon. Member. He entirely agreed with the object of the hon. Member; but his Amendment was fatal to his object. It would introduce the mischievous principle that one act in disregard of the authority of the Chair might be considered with reference to previous acts of disregard, and this would be a total innovation, as each act of disregard must be considered independently and at once dealt with.
    Amendment to the said proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That the words 'disregarded the authority of the Chair' be there added," put, and agreed to.
    Question, "That the words 'Provided also, That not more than one Member shall be named at the same time, unless several Members, present together, have jointly disregarded the authority of the Chair' be added at the end of the foregoing Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    MR. GORSTproposed to add words giving the House power to revoke a suspension by a Resolution.
    Amendment proposed, to add, at the end of the Standing Order, the words "or of revoking any such suspension by a Resolution."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was most distinctly under the impression that the Amendment was unnecessary, as it would be setting forth in terms a matter that was altogether indisputable. Being reluctant to introduce a matter that would be a re-enactment of a power that the House already possessed, he appealed to the Speaker for his ruling upon the point.
    MR. SPEAKERreplied, that the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham was superfluous, as the House already had the power it was proposed to confer by the Amendment.
    MR. GORST: After your statement, Sir, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLmoved to add to the Resolution a Proviso that if any Member so suspended should thereafter vacate his seat and be reelected a Member of the House, such order of suspension should not be deemed to be in force against him. The noble Lord referred to the case of Mr. Brad-laugh as showing that when a Member was re-elected he became a new person altogether, and was freed from previous disabilities.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought the Amendment was unnecessary, as it was clear that a Member on ceasing to be a Member of the House passed out of its jurisdiction altogether. On returning to the House he entered it as a new man.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the case referred to by the noble Lord was quite in point.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question put, "That the Standing Order, as amended, be agreed to."
    The House divided:—Ayes 161; Noes 19: Majority 142.—(Div. List, No. 393.)
    (9.) Resolved, That, whenever any Member shall have been named by the Speaker, or by the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House, immediately after the commission of the offence of disregarding the authority of the Chair, or of abusing the Rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House, or otherwise, then, if the offence has been committed by such Member in the House, the Speaker shall forthwith put the Question, on a Motion being made, no amendment, adjournment, or debate, being allowed, "That such Member be suspended from the service of the House;" and, if the offence has been committed in a Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall, on a Motion being made, put the same Question in a similar way, and if the Motion is carried shall forthwith suspend the proceedings of the Committee and report the circumstance to the House; and the Speaker shall thereupon put the same Question, without amendment, adjournment, or debate, as if the offence had been committed in the House itself. If any Member be suspended under this Order, his suspension on the first occasion shall continue for one week, on the second occasion for a fortnight, and on the third, or any subsequent occasion, for a month: Provided always, That suspension from the service of the House shall not exempt the Member so suspended from serv-

    1897
    ing on any Committee for the consideration of a Private Bill to which he may have been appointed before his suspension: Provided also, That not more than one Member shall be named at the same time, unless several Members, present together, have jointly disregarded the authority of the Chair: Provided always, That nothing in this Resolution shall be taken to deprive the House of the power of proceeding against any Member according to ancient usages.
    Further Consideration of the New Rules of Procedure deferred till To-morrow.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock.

Preamble
Their Lordships met this day at Eleven of the clock for the despatch of Judicial Business only.
House adjourned at Four o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.