right hon. Gentleman, that the Government did not repudiate the construction which had been put upon the Rule by the Chairman of Committees last Session by which Members could be sus MR. DODSON remarked, that what he had intended to convey was that it was because the Government did not repudiate that construction of the Rule in its present form that they had thought it well to propose the alteration of the Rule. sudden offence which it might be neces- | evident, from what had fallen from the sary for the House to have power to meet; but it obviously applied to the whole of the offences included in the Rule. It therefore applied to the of fence of constructive Obstruction, because the essence of constructive Ob-pended in their absence. struction was the joining together at various times of several Members in the same act. The Amendment, therefore, of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham, although going only a very short way, was absolutely necessary if they wanted to carry out the views of the Government. He thought Obstruc- MR. CHAPLIN observed, that the detion might be fairly defined as an act of claration of the right hon. Gentleman which a Member was guilty at the time amounted to a verdict of "Not Guilty he was Named by the Chairman or against the Chairman of Committees, with Speaker, and which derived its import-a recommendation that he should not do ance from what he had done himself, and not from what had been done by any number of other Members. If a Member was only to be responsible for his own acts, and if the Presiding Authority was not to be entitled to suspend him for the acts of some other Member, it should be stated in the Rule. If they were to guard against the suspension of Members for constructive Obstruction, it appeared to him that they should, amongst other provisions, adopt that proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham-namely, that the Member should be present at the time the offence was committed; otherwise he might be held responsible for the offences of somebody else at some other time, or he might be held responsible for little bits of offences committed by himself a week before, and which, taken in connection with the act which gave rise to his suspension, constituted in the mind of the Chairman the offence for which he was punished. MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD objected to the Amendment, because it did not provide for what the hon. and learned Member for Chatham really desired. He hoped, under the circumstances, that the hon. and learned Member would withdraw the Amendment, and allow the subject to be re-introduced at a later stage. MR. CHAPLIN said, that he had listened with much surprise to the remarks of the President of the Local Government Board in reference to this point, which had rendered it necessary that the Opposition should reconsider their position with regard to it. It was it again. If the Rule were framed in accordance with the general feeling of the House Members could not be suspended under it in their absence. He hoped that some words would be adopted which would insure offences by Members of that House being dealt with as they were committed, and that the suspension of Members en masse in their absence would not again occur. MR. RYLANDS said, he did not think it necessary to go back upon the old question whether the Chairman of Committees was right or not in the construction he had placed upon the Rule last Session. It was quite sufficient to know that that construction had been extremely annoying to the House, especially when it was clearly established that two or three of the suspended Members were entirely innocent. There was a general agreement upon two points; the first being that when any Member was to be punished under this Resolution, the punishment was to be immediate upon the offence being committed, and that there should be no idea in the mind of the Chairman of bit-by-bit offences accumulating at length-in the hon. Member being Named. It had been objected that under this Amendment the Member might go out of the House, and thus escape the punishment. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) suggested that he should be brought back again; but they could not do that without using a machinery which would occupy a great deal of time. The Government had shown every disposition to meet the point; but he should be very glad if they would get rid of these con structive and collective offences. They were not worth fighting about; but, at the same time, he would use every means for keeping order in the House. SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS said, he hoped that if the Government could not accept this Amendment they would propose some other words, to carry out the object they had in view. The Member should be present in the House when he was Named, and the punishment should follow immediately on the offence being committed. He would suggest that they might introduce words that, "whenever any Member, after an offence has been committed, shall be Named," &c., or they might add a Proviso to the effect that any person so Named should be Named forthwith. MR. GLADSTONE entirely agreed with the principle of the Amendments suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, and was of opinion that the Proviso introduced last night would secure such an operation of the Rule. MR. ASHMEAD BARTLETT suggested that some period of time should be inserted after the commission of the offence within which alone a Member could be Named. SIR JOHN HAY said, he did not believe the Amendment announced by the Government would carry out the object that was intended by the Government; and he would, therefore, suggest the insertion in the second line of the Government Amendment, after the words "Chairman of a Committee of the Whole House," the words "immediately after the commission of the offence," which would prevent such a thing again taking place as occurred with respect to the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum) during last Session. MR. GLADSTONE said, he had no objection to these words. MR. NEWDEGATE, with regard to Naming a number of Members collectively by the Chairman of Committees, desired to call the attention of the House to their former practice. [Cries of" Divide" from the Ministerial Benches.] Those interruptions appeared as if hon. Members were ashamed of the House in which they sat, and had no faith in its fairness; but he had always believed that the House of Commons was distinguished for its justice, its legislation, and its internal discipline. He had risen to say, however, that he hoped Mr. Rylands some words to the effect of the Amend. ment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) would be introduced into the Resolution, because he had a vivid recollection of the case of the late Mr. Smith O'Brien. When that hon. Gentleman refused to serve on a Committee of this House, the Honse sent its messenger for him, and when, in obedience to that summons, Mr. O'Brien came, he proceeded to take his place in the House, but was told to retire to the Bar, because the House was still deliberating as to what penalty should be inflicted; but the hon. Member was allowed to be present, and had the opportunity of claiming to be heard before any judgment was given, and of apologizing to the House before the penalty was enforced. Remembering that precedent, he agreed entirely in the object of the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham. MR. WARTON suggested that the Standing Order should be re-cast, so as to place the offence first and the punishment afterwards, as was done in all Acts of Parliament dealing with offences. MR. BIGGAR said, he thought it was only reasonable that the Government should agree to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham. He (Mr. Biggar) protested against Members being Named when not in the House. LORD JOHN MANNERS believed that if the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) were adopted, the Standing Order would be rendered much clearer. MR. GORST asked leave to withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that that of his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wigtown (Sir John Hay) were adopted. MR. SALT said, he would support the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), if he put it into words and moved it. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL moved to amend the Resolution in line 1, by inserting, after "Member," the words "after a full and reasonable notice." The object of the Amendment was to remove all doubt as to the wilful character of the offence, and to prevent a recurrence of the well-known incident when a considerable number of Members were Named by the Chairman of Committees without any notice whatever having been given to the hon. Gentlemen concerned. The indulgence shown by the Speaker was beyond all praise, aud it was desirable to enshrine his rulings in these Resolutions. The Amendment was an attempt in that direction. He hoped that the Prime Minister would accept it, bearing in mind his own words when the Resolution was originally passed in 1880, that it was safer to err on the side of leniency than of severity. Amendment proposed, In line 1, after the word "Member," to insert the words "after a full and reasonable notice."(Lord Randolph Churchill.) Question proposed, That those words be there inserted." MR. GLADSTONE, in opposing the Amendment said, he would not dwell too much on the fact that in discussing the 5th Resolution the proposal to make notice an absolute condition was negatived, because then they were dealing with light penalties, and in the present Resolution with heavy ones. He would further admit that, in ordinary cases, it was a correct assumption that the Speaker or the Chairman would give notice. That had been the ordinary practice of the Chair, and he hoped that it would always be pursued. But he objected to any word being inserted in the Resolution to bind the discretion of the Chair for two reasons. In the first place, there might be cases where the disobedience and breach of the order and decency of the House was so palpable and violent, and so plainly indicated a determined will of disobedience, that notice would really be disparaging to the authority and dignity of the House. It was not the case that it had been the uniform practice of the Speaker to give notice; for in the great case where the Members remained in the House in defiance of the order of the Speaker no Notice was given. LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL The Speaker did give notice. MR. SEXTON: After the first division, the Speaker informed the hon. Members who remained in the Houae that if they repeated their conduct he would take notice of it. MR. GLADSTONE said, that, at all events, there was no necessity to give There notice. If the Speaker presumed ignorance, it was a charitable presumption, for the act was done in defiance of the express order of the Speaker that the Members should quit the House. A stronger and more palpable argument in favour of vesting the discretion in the Speaker could be drawn from the case of a Member who, after being punished for his first offence, deliberately committed a second. Could it be said that warning was again to be given him? No doubt, as a general rule, warning would be given in the case of the first offence, but not for the second. might be new forms of disobedience with which the House was not acquainted. The House was yet young in this science, and as they grew older the professors of the art might improve and develop it. He thought, therefore, that for the first offence the warning should be at the discretion of the Presiding Officer; and that in the case of the second offence it would be injurious and disparaging to the dignity of the House that any warning should be given. For those reasons he was opposed to the Amendment. MR. GREGORY said, he did not think the words proposed by the noble Lord were workable. There was no jury in the House to say what was "full and reasonable notice." He urged the noble' Lord to withdraw his Amendment in favour of the one which the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had intimated his intention of moving. MR. ONSLOW said, that it should not be forgotten that these Rules were to apply when the Chairman of Ways and Means was in the Chair. It ought to be provided that full notice should be given by the Chairman that hon. Members were disregarding his authority. In laying down hard-and-fast Rules provision should be made that Members were treated in a proper way, and that such occurrences as took place last Session should not happen again. The Amendment of the noble Lord was not explicit enough, while it went too far. Не would suggest that ample notice" should be substituted for "full and sufficient." 66 MR. SYNAN approved of the principle of the noble Lord's Amendment, that warning should be given to Members that they were offending; but he Question put. thought that the words used were too vague and general. LORD JOHN MANNERS suggested the withdrawal of the Amendment, and the settlement of the question by the means the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had recommended. MR. WHITBREAD- believed that every Member who had been Named for Obstruction had been repeatedly warned by the Speaker before being silenced.["No!" When he said that Members had always been warned, he meant that their attention had been called to the fact that they had strayed from the Question to which they ought to have confined themselves. There were other cases besides cases of Obstruction to which the Amendment of the noble Lord would apply-namely, cases in which well-defined Rules were directly and flagrantly violated. To lay down that a Member guilty of such violations was entitled to warning would be absurd. The House divided:-Ayes 58; Noes 184: Majority 131.-(Div. List, No. 386.) MR. WARTON proposed to omit all the words from "have," in line 1, to disregarding," in line 3, and to insert the word "disregarded.' The effect of that, with two or three consequential Amendments, would be to put the horse before the cart, instead of putting the cart before the horse, as the Standing Order did at present. They would have the offence first and the punishment after. The Rule would then read thus "That whenever any Member shall have disregarded the authority of the Chair or abused the Rules of the House, then, if the offence be committed in the House, he may forthwith be named by the Speaker.' Amendment proposed," In line 1, to leave out the words "have been named by the Speaker, or by the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House, as disregard'disregarded,”— MR. GORST argued that, in the opi-ing," and insert the word " nion of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), the conduct of the Speaker on more than one occasion must have been absurd, for it had happened more than once that the Speaker had warned Members who were wilfully disregarding the Rules of the House before Naming them. In one case the warning was repeated two or three times. He referred to the occasion when 27 Members refused to go into the Lobby and vote. The hon. Member for Bedford was mistaken when he said that there was no instance of a suspension for Obstruction which had not been preceded by several warnings. Had the hon. Member never heard of the case of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum), who was suspended on a memorable occasion, not only without previous warning, but just after his entry into the House after a night spent in bed? MR. HOPWOOD contended that, in cases of flagrant violation of the Rules of the House, no warning should be necessary before the punishment of the delinquent. MR. BIGGAR said, that, on the occasion when 27 Irish Members were suspended, so far from the Chairman giving them any warning, he had only been a few minutes in the House, and did not know what had taken place. Mr. Synan (Mr. Warton,) instead thereof. Question proposed, "That the words been named by the Speaker' stand part of the said Standing Order." MR. GLADSTONE said, he thought the question raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman would be very well worth considering if they were in a private room or a Committee Room engaged in drawing up this Resolution for the first time. But to attempt to readjust it at present would only throw them into confusion, while no substan tial advantage would be gained. LORD JOHN MANNERS observed that, as one who had encouraged his hon. and learned Friend to propose the Amendment, he thought the form sug gested would be a decided improvement; but, after what had fallen from the Prime Minister, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would withdraw his Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. MR. GLADSTONE moved to insert the words "immediately after the commission of the offence," which Amendment would provide against the possi bility of a Member being Named for constructive Obstruction. Amendment proposed, In line 2, after the word "House," to insert the words "immediately after the commission of the offence."-(Mr. Gladstone.) word "insulting," he moved to insert the word "wilfully." Amendment proposed, in line 3, after Question proposed, "That those words the foregoing Amendment, to insert the Amendment made, in line 3, by leaving out the word "as," and inserting the word "of," Mr. Gladstone,)—instead thereof. MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON moved the omission of the words "disregarding the authority of the Chair," which, in his opinion, either were superfluous or created a new Parliamentary offence. The Speaker or Chairman acted under the directions of the House, and an offence against the authority of the Chair was an offence against the Rules of the House. The relations between the House and the Chair, which had been much strained lately, would probably be altogether changed by the New Rules of Procedure; and it would be well, as it seemed to him, that the discretion of the Chair should be limited by the directions of the House. [The Amendment, not being seconded, could not be put.] .. MR. T. P. O'CONNOR said, he thought the Rule ought to discriminate between accidental and wilful disregard. He would have preferred the words "insulting and disregarding;" but, as he could not obtain support for the word "wilfully."-(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.) Question proposed, "That the word wilfully' be there inserted." MR. GLADSTONE said, that a Speaker or Chairman would not enforce the Rule for accidental disregard; and, as the Rule had been in operation for years without revealing the supposed defect, he appealed to the hon. Member to leave the matter to the discretion of the Chair. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment made, in line 3, by inserting after the word "or," the word "of."-(Mr. Gladstone.) LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL rose to move the omission of the words "abusing the Rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the Business of the House." He said, they were absolutely unnecessary, because such abuse was now impossible with the New Rules, under which several Members had been called to Order. MR. SPEAKER said, the House having inserted the word "of" after "or," the Resolution would not read if the Amendment were carried. LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I got up to move my Amendment before the Prime Minister moved his. MR. SPEAKER: As the Resolution now stands, the Amendment cannot be put from the Chair, because, if it were carried, the Resolution would not be sense. LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL said, he should limit his Amendment to the omission of the words "by persistently and wilfully obstructing the Business of the House." It seemed almost impossible to devise methods of Obstruction now. There could be no Obstruction in debate, or in divisions, or in making long speeches for that purpose, as the Resolutions already passed could be put in force. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had put down several Notices of Motion on one subject to prevent a Motion on another subject coming on. Was he to be suspended for abusing the Rules of the House in that way? On Monday night |