and, whether, since such opinions were | the Government that a prosecution ought expressed in the presence of the lead- to be instituted, far be it from me to say ing Liberals of the town, including the that it is not a Question which he is not president and ex-president of the Liberal entirely entitled to put; but I did not Association and three members of the conceive that that was his meaning. council, without rebuke, and are of a character calculated to incite to a breach of the peace and encourage murder, some steps cannot be taken by the Government to prevent a repetition of similar language at public meetings at Ipswich or elsewhere? MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Gentleman has put a Question to me, with respect to which I must say I hope I am not to be made a tribunal of appeal as to language, of which I may approve or disapprove, that may be used by any independent person in the country. A censorship of speech is a function which cannot be conveniently added to the duties I am called upon to discharge. I shall only, by way of information, inform the hon. Gentleman one thing. Of course, I am bound to say that if the words which the hon. Gentleman has cited were used as they stand without any qualifying connection to alter sense -[Laughter, cries of "Oh, oh!" from Mr. WARTON and other Members of the Opposition, and "Order!"]-I must beg the hon. Member for Bridport-[Mr. WARTON: I am not alone; and cries of "Order!"]-to permit me freedom of speech. [Mr. WARTON: With pleasure, Sir.] If the words cited by the hon. Member were used without any context which would essentially define and alter their apparent construction, they are words upon which too severe a censure could not be passed. I am, however, assured by a gentleman who is acquainted with Ipswich that they were not so used; that they were not understood by anyone who heard them in the sense that the hon. Member has not unnaturally attached to them; and, finally, that the hon. Member has not correctly described this gentleman, because, as I understand, he is not secretary of the Liberal Association, as has been stated in the Question. MR. BELLINGHAM stated that, in MR. GLADSTONE: I ought to have OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSI- MR. THOROLD ROGERS asked the MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, he was afraid he could not find time for the discussion of these statutes in the interval between the 27th of March and the 21st of May. PARLIAMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman when he expects to take the second reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill? I should also ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can accelerate the distribution of the Paper usually published giving the SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I Financial Statement? MR. GLADSTONE: I will give an answer to-morrow at 2 o'clock. LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: As to the Financial Statement, I will make inquiries. STATE OF IRELAND-ALLEGED RIOT AT FRANKFORT, KING'S CO. MR. GIBSON asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he had received any confirmatory telegrams with respect to a statement of an alarming character which appeared in the evening papers in reference to Ireland? The statement was to the effect that at a riot at Frankfort, King's County, on Saturday, a number of persons who were reported to have paid their rent were attacked and beaten in a fearful manner. The police succeeded in arresting 30 men, and, under the command of the resident magistrate, | tenant of Ireland some time ago, and to proceeded to clear the streets at the which I did not then obtain a direct and point of the bayonet. He wished to satisfactory answer. I wish to ask wheknow if the right hon. Gentleman was ther, considering that a matter involving aware whether order had been at pre- the character of the Irish Executive and sent restored to the town, and what was their agents has now come into controthe condition of the people who were versy between the Irish Executive and a said to have been beaten in a fearful Member of this House. the Government manner? will grant an independent inquiry? MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he had not seen the evening papers, and as he had not been at the Irish Office he had not received any confirmatory telegram on the subject. MR. GIBSON said, he would ask the Question to-morrow. TUNIS-BOMBARDMENT OF SFAX-IN- ment. PRISONS BOARD (IRELAND)-CAPTAIN BARLOW. MR. SEXTON: Mr. Speaker, with reference to a document issued this morning as a Parliamentary Papernamely, a letter from Captain Barlow, Vice President of the Prisons Board-I have to repeat a Question which I asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that if the hon. Member brought the Question before the House, it would form a proper subject of discussion; but until the House had come to a decision upon it, he should not recommend an inquiry. MR. SEXTON said, that he should bring before the House the quibbles, prevarications, and falsehood contained in the letter of Captain Barlow. STATE OF IRELAND-ALLEGED MURDERS. MR. LEWIS asked, Whether the Government were in possession of information as to the truth or falsity of the report of murders which were committed in Ireland last night? MR. W. E. FORSTER: Perhaps the hon. Member will put the Question in the usual way, and will say what murders. ORDERS OF THE DAY. PARLIAMENT BUSINESS OF THE [SIXTH NIGHT.] Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [20th February], "That when it shall appear to Mr. Speaker, or to the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House, during any Debate, to be the evident sense of the House, or of the Committee, that House or the Committee; and, if a Motion be the Question be now put, he may so inform the made That the Question be now put,' Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, shall forthwith put such Question; and, if the same be decided in the affirmative, the Question under discussion shall be put forthwith: Provided that the Question shall not be decided in the affirmative, if a Division be taken, unless it shall appear to have been supported by more than two hundred Members, or unless it shall appear to have been opposed by less than forty Members and supported by more than one hundred Members."— (Mr. Gladstone.) Question again proposed. [Sixth Night.] MR. O'DONNELL said, that the Amendment he intended to move had reference to one particular feature of the 1st Rule. It was proposed that when it should appear to Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of Committees, that it was the evident sense of the House that the debate should close, the Speaker or the Chairman should put a certain Question forthwith, and on the vote of the House the debate should be closed. His Amendment was, after the words "Mr. Speaker," to insert these words-"after an appeal to his judgment by a Minister of the Crown." He had originally intended to have moved the omission of the words "Mr. Speaker," and to substitute for them the words "a Minister of the Crown;" but he found that in consequence of a previous Amendment having been negatived, the words "Mr. Speaker" had been ordered to stand part of the Question. He was, therefore, obliged to fall back upon the next best alternative. The effect of his Amendment, if adopted, would be that, instead of the proceedings for closing the debate being put in motion by the Speaker, or at the Speaker's initiative, they must openly, unmistakably, and undeniably come from a Minister of the Crown. He desired that a Motion for silencing the Opposition and for precipitating the decision of the House should be made by an authority commensurate with the responsible and grave nature of the proposal. The Speaker was not a responsible person to the House in the sense in which a Minister of the Crown was responsible both to the House and to the country. The Speaker was, practically, irresponsiblethat was to say, through the choice of the House and the authority reposed in him he was quite above ordinary responsibility. As was repeatedly stated in the debate upon the Rule now upon the Standing Orders with reference to the naming of a Member, although the vote of the House was called in to ratify the decision of the Speaker, yet, in reality, the decision of the Speaker ought to be considered quite above discussion. If the Speaker's conduct were to be called in question, it must be done by a special Motion, so as to leave his authority absolutely free from challenge. The Speaker was not responsible to the country, and, therefore, he ought not to take the initiative in closing a debate which might be of interest to the country. For the same reason he objected to an Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), who proposed to throw the responsibility upon the Member in charge of the subject under discussion. There were numbers of subjects introduced by hon. Members for which they themselves were in no sense responsible to the country. A strange confusion was to be traced in the mind of the Government, for the reasons could not be the same which influenced them in proposing that the initiative should be taken by the Chairman of Committees as well as by the Speaker. While the Speaker was chosen, not by a Party, but by the Whole House, the Chairman of Committees was the choice of the Ministerial Party for the time being. It was in order to remove all obscurity, and to enable the House and the country to know on whom the responsibility rested, that he proposed that the Speaker should not exercise the functions which the Rule would devolve upon him except upon an open and undisguised appeal to his judgment by a Minister of the Crown. In any case it would be a Ministerial appeal, and it ought not to be passed off upon the country as anything else. Under the present plan, under cover of the Speaker, the Government would, in reality, however innocent their intentions might be, be parties to an attempt to hoodwink the country as to the real significance of the Motion before the House. If the Government considered a debate had been sufficiently prolonged, what reason was there in common sense, in-Constitutional Law, or in the practice of Parliament, why they should not openly ask, on their own responsibility, that the Question should be forthwith put? If the Motion were a fair one, a necessary one, and demanded in the interest of Public Business, why should the Government of the day be ashamed to put it in force, or shrink from doing their duty? He proposed that the initiative should be openly taken by a Minister of the Crown, because that was the only means of preventing the Speakership from becoming an ap panage of the Ministerial Bench. Of late currency had been given to erro neous ideas concerning the relationship of the Speaker to the House. For a considerable time successive Speakers had deserved the highest credit as impartial arbiters of debate between Party and Party; but they must not close their | minion of the Ministry of the day, and eyes to history. The dignified, impartial, would be as absolutely the mouthpiece trusted position of the Speaker in that of the majority as the Presidents of House was a plant of modern growth, Continental Legislative Chambers. Nor and of comparatively recent develop- would it be in any way derogatory for ment. He doubted if the impartiality, future Speakers to hold such a position, dignity, the unquestioned authority of seeing that the right hon. Gentleman's the Speaker could be traced back for Successors in the Chair could not be more than a century-certainly not for judged by the canons of political momore than a century and a-half Down rality of the present day. Partizans to the time of the Revolution the they would undoubtedly be, just as the Speakership was an appanage much Whips were partizans, and in closing a more of Royalty than of the House of debate a Speaker of the future would Commons; under the Tudors and the be merely giving effect to the Whip's Stuarts the Speaker watched the pro- instructious as to a division. He proceedings of the House in the interests posed, therefore, that the initiative in of Royalty rather than as an impar- this matter, which must necessarily tial arbiter or defender of its privileges. belong to the Government in reality, According to Mr. Reginald Palgrave, should proceed from them openly and Charles I. had placed himself far beyond avowedly. In whatever way the Speaker excuse or palliation when the Speaker was to gather the evident sense of the (Lenthal), on the occasion of the King's House-whether by a discreet whisper attempt to seize the five Members, had from the Treasury Bench, or by upthe courage and the resolution to refuse roarious clamour of the House-it would to be a Royal minion, and determined equally come from the Government of to speak as the mouthpiece of the House the day; and the only result of putting alone. Hitherto the Speaker had been the initiative in the hands of the the servant of the King against the Speaker would be to produce confusion House, and the King must have proved in the public mind, and lead the people himself most culpable when even the to imagine something had been done Speaker turned against him. The con- on the pure initiative of the Speaker, version of the House into a Committee which had really been planned in the of the Whole House, was an innovation office of the Government Whip. Now, designed, among other reasons, for the a doubt existed as to the object of the purpose of getting rid of the Speaker. clôture. According to some, it was inThe authority of the Speaker had as- tended to put down a small band of sumed its present dignity and purity desperate conspirators against the Convery slowly and gradually in a House of stitution; according to others, it was to Commons, which last century was no- stifle legitimate opposition. In either toriously corrupt, and in which it was as case the Government might have the well known that there was a market for courage of their convictions and take Members to be bought by the Treasury the initiative upon themselves, whether as it was that there was a market for they desired to overwhelm a regular fat cattle at Smithfield. He agreed with Opposition, or to silence a clique of malall that had been said on both sides of contents. There was, in truth, not a the House with such grave emphasis single rational argument against his and unctuous frequency to impress Irish Amendment; and it would have the Members with regard to the dignity and very great merit of fixing responsibility impartiality of the Speaker in recent on the right persons, and of avoiding times. It would be hard if just when, the scandals that would some day preby the confession of both political Par- vail of divisions unfairly snatched at ties, the Speakership had reached its critical moments, after which the Gohighest point and culmination, it was by vernment of the day would throw the the proposal of a Liberal Government odium on the Speaker, while the Oppoto be thrust back into a position lower sition denounced equally both Speaker than that from which it had been lifted. and Government. If ever there was a The Speaker had long ago ceased to be country where burning questions were the minion of the King. But if this likely to arise and multiply, and tempResolution passed as it was at present tations to Party passions and Party unworded, the Speaker would become the scrupulousness to abound, it was this [Sixth Night.] country. Here they had an ancient | ber (Mr. O'Donnell); but he thought Constitution approaching a great crisis, they ought to place other Members on and certain to undergo great trans- an equality with the Ministers in this formations. They would have the grave respect, and not establish a difference questions of religion, of authority, of between Ministers of the Crown and the distribution of power before them other Members which did not at present in the near future; and, if in foreign exist. He before asked the right hon. countries these questions called forth Gentleman in the Chair whether it would such Party passions, how could it be ex- be in Order to move to omit the words pected that this country should escape "Mr. Speaker." He desired to move them. They need not wonder at the the omission of these words, because high distinction and impartiality of the he thought that if there was to be this Speaker of the British House of Com-power of silencing the minority it ought mons hitherto. One reason for it was to be dissociated from the functions of the that he never had the power of being Chair; but, unfortunately, the last divipartial. The Speaker was the lord and sion not only negatived the Amendment arbiter of order; but, above all things, of the hon. Member (Mr. Marriott), but the protector of minorities and of in- practically affirmed that the Speaker dividuals. He was, in fact, the mouth-was to be associated with this Rule, piece and the champion of minorities. They were entitled, therefore, by a sort of reverse reasoning, to conclude that, when the whole character and nature of the Speakership was altered by this unmanly Rule of Clôture, the impartiality of the Chair would disappear. With the view of leaving the responsibility where it ought to rest-namely, with the Ministry of the day--he begged to move his Amendment. Amendment proposed, In line 1, after the words "Mr. Speaker," to insert the words "after an appeal to his judgment by a Minister of the Crown."(Mr. O'Donnell.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted." LORD GEORGE HAMILTON said, he had an Amendment on the Paper, the earlier part of which was identical with that of the hon. Member (Mr. O'Donnell), and he rose to move as an Amendment to that of the hon. Member the latter part of his Amendment. If the House were to accept this, with some other Amendments further down, the Resolution would run though this was not what they had discussed. He was, therefore, driven to move this Amendment, which, in one sense, was inadequate; but if any hon. Member should propose anything stronger he would support it. He believed it was an established principle that if any alteration in the Rules or Standing Orders of the House was proposed and the Party in power allowed such alteration to be made without protest, they were to a certain extent responsible for it. What he wished to point out was how exceedingly mischievous must be the result if they chose deliberately to take the Speaker out of his proper sphere of action and to associate him with this Resolution. The Government informed the House that they could not be responsible for the further conduct of affairs unless they had the power of imposing restraint upon Members of the House other than themselves. That power had not been asked for by any preceding Ministry; and he would go a step further, and say that if the proposal had emanated from any Ministry other than the present Government, the Members of the present Government When a Government admitted their inwould have opposed it tooth-and-nail. ability to carry on the affairs of the country without coercive powers, the House was ever ready to grant those Powers; but only upon one conditionthat the Government should be made responsible. They were now asked to assent to a Resolution which was a standing Coercion Act. There was no He thought there was great force in Coercion Act passed during the present many of the arguments of the hon. Mem-century which could have, or was in "When it shall appear to Mr. Speaker, after an appeal to him by a Minister of the Crown, or by the Member in charge of the subject under discussion, or to the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House, after a similar appeal, that the question under discussion has been fully debated, and that it is evidently the general sense of the House, or of the Committee, that the question be now put, he may, if he thinks fit, so inform the House or the Committee." |