ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Chapter challenge to Mr. Molyneux, a merchant, the house required his assurance that the matter should go no further.1

XII.

Words

taken down upon the

direction,

see p. 346. Report by

chairman of words

down, see p.

387.

5

taken

When disorderly words are used by a member in debate, Words notice should be immediately taken of the words objected down. Speaker's to; 2 and if a member desires that the words be taken down, he must repeat the words to which he objects, and state them to the house exactly as he conceives the words to have been spoken. Then the Speaker or chairman, if in not taken his opinion the words are disorderly, having ascertained the sense of the house or the committee, directs the Clerk to take down the words to which objection has been taken.* Even the Speaker's own words have been taken down. The Commons have agreed "that when any member had spoke between, no words which had passed before could be taken notice of, so as to be written down in order to a censure." 6 And on the 9th April, 1807, the Speaker decided that certain words could not be taken down, though a member had immediately risen to order, and had objected to the words used, because another member and the Speaker had spoken to the question of order, before the house expressed a wish to have the words taken down. And again, when objection was taken to words, after a question put from the chair, it was ruled to be too late. This rule applies, if the house, the member is permitted to continue his speech without see p. 346; interruption; and in the Lords, also, the words are and for the suspension required to be taken down instanter.9 If the words be see p. 340. taken down in a committee of the whole house, they are reported forthwith, to be dealt with by the house.10 Failing

Mishehaviour in

of members,

1 Private memorandum, 22nd Feb. 1849. But see 13 C. J. 444; also case when offensive language had been used, in the division lobby, concerning a speech delivered at a public meeting, 16th May, 1867, 122 ib. 221.

2 165 H. D. 3 s. 622; 268 ib. 196. Regarding the Speaker's discretion in giving the direction, see 2 Hatsell, 272, n. ; also 115 H. D. 3 s. 276; 235 ib. 1806.

* 2 Hatsell, 269; 66 C. J. 391; 68 ib. 322; 247 ib. 1382; 270 ib. 365;

P.

[blocks in formation]

Citing

documents

XII.

the tender of explanation or apology, the consideration of Chapter
the matter is appointed for the next sitting, and the
member incriminated is ordered to attend. Immediate
complaint to the chair is, however, the most effective mode
of dealing with offensive words.

Another rule, or principle of debate, may be here added. A minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote the house. from a despatch or other state paper not before the house,

not before

unless he be prepared to lay it upon the table. This restraint
is similar to that rule of evidence, in courts of law, which
prevents counsel from citing documents which have not been
produced in evidence. The principle is so reasonable that
it has not been contested; and when the objection has been
made in time, it has been generally acquiesced in. It has
also been admitted that a document which has been cited,
ought to be laid upon the table of the house, if it can be
done without injury to the public interests. The same rule,
however, cannot be held to apply to private letters or memo-
randa. On the 18th May, 1865, the attorney-general, on
being asked by Mr. Ferrand if he would lay upon the table
a written statement and a letter to which he had referred, on
a previous day, in answering a question relative to the Leeds
Bankruptcy Court, replied that he had made a statement
to the house upon his own responsibility, and that, the

134 C. J. 316; 235 H. D. 3 s. 1810;
272 ib. 1561. 1565; 148 C. J. 469.

1 See motion of Mr. Adam, 4th
March, 1808, to censure Mr. Canning
for having read to the house de-
spatches and parts of despatches,
none of which had then been com-
municated to the house, and some
of which the house had determined
should not be produced, 10 H. D. 1
s. 898; 2 Lord Colchester's Diary,
141. Mr. Canning and Mr. Tierney,
11th Feb. 1818, 37 H. D. 338.
bate in committee of supply, 17th
July, 1857 (Sir C. Wood); 146 H. D.
3 s. 1759. See debate, 23rd May,
1862, on the Longford Election, in
which Sir Robert Peel referred to
information received by the govern-
ment without citing documents; and

De

comments made upon this course,
and precedents cited, 166 ib. 2128-31.
Also statement of rule by Viscount
Palmerston, 12th May, 1863; and
176 ib. 962; 179 ib. 489; 235 ib. 935;
319 ib. 1859. 1869; 336 ib. 651. See
also debate, 11th March, 1903,
when a minister quoted the evidence
given before a military court of in-
quiry, and the Speaker's statement,
16th March, that the rule of debate
had been complied with by laying
upon the table the evidence of the
witness quoted, 119 Parl. Deb. 4 s.
501. 570. 858. A minister, who
summarises a correspondence but
does not actually quote from it, is
not bound to lay it upon the table,
151 ib. 814.

ΧΙΙ.

Chapter documents he had referred to being private, he could not lay them upon the table. Lord R. Cecil contended that the papers, having been cited, should be produced: but the Speaker declared that this rule applied to public documents only.1 On the 10th August, 1893, the Speaker ruled that confidential documents, or documents of a private nature passing between officers of a department and the department, cited in debate, are not necessarily laid on the table of the house, especially if the minister declares. that they are of a confidential nature. Indeed, it is obvious that, as the house deals only with public documents in its proceedings, it could not thus incidentally require the production of papers which, if moved for separately, would be refused as beyond its jurisdiction. Members not connected with the government have also cited documents in their possession, both public and private, which were not before the house but though the house is equally unable to form a correct judgment from partial extracts, inconvenient latitude has sometimes been permitted, which it is doubtful whether any rule but that of good taste could have restrained.

see pp. 407,

539.

Legal
The opinions of the law officers of the Crown, being con-
opinions
presented, fidential, are not usually laid before Parliament, nor cited
in debate; and their production has frequently been
refused but if a minister deems it expedient that such
opinions should be made known, for the information of the
house, he is entitled to cite them in debate.1

closed.

Debate must cease on the question under discussion Debate when the question has been "entirely" or "fully" put by the Speaker of either house of Parliament (see p. 311), in the Lords, pursuant to standing order No. 30, and in the Commons, under established usage.

tion.

(9) The rules of Parliament are designed to afford every Obstruclegitimate opportunity of discussion, to ensure reasonable

1 179 H. D. 3 s. 489; see Speaker's

ruling, 282 ib. 2108.

215 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 1778.

Debate, 8th March, 1855, on

naval operations in the Baltic, 137
H. D. 3 s. 261; 280 ib. 250.

4 Riots at Belfast, 17th Feb. 1865,
177 ib. 354. 355.

Suspension of mem

bers.

S. O. 18, Appendix I.

XII.

delays in the passing of important measures, and to guard Chapter
the rights of minorities;1 and freedom of debate has been
maintained and observed by the rules and usages of both
houses, with rare patience and self-denial. But, of late,
these salutary rules have been strained and perverted, in
the House of Commons, for purposes of obstruction. Such
a course, if persisted in, would frustrate the power and
authority of Parliament, and secure the domination of a
small minority, condemned by the deliberate judgment of
the house and of the country. That it was unparliamentary
and opposed to the principles of orderly government was
manifest; and on the 25th July, 1877, it was declared by
the Speaker, "that any member wilfully and persistently
obstructing public business, without just and reasonable
cause, is guilty of a contempt of the house, and would be
liable to such punishment, whether by censure, by sus-
pension from the service of the house, or by commitment,
as the house may adjudge." "

That a revision of the standing orders must be made to
secure the due transaction of public business, and to main-
tain the dignity of the house, became obvious. The matter
was considered by a select committee in 1878, and a
standing order was passed,* 28th February, 1880, amended
22nd November, 1882, for the suspension of a member from
the service of the house, on question put forthwith, who
shall be named by the Speaker, or the chairman of a
committee of the whole house, whether he be the chairman

1 Jeremy Bentham contrasts the
liberal spirit of the English Parlia-
ment with the intolerance of revolu-

tionary France. "In France, the
terrible decrees of urgency, the de-
crees for closing the discussion, may
well be remembered with dread;
they were formed for the subjuga-
tion of the minority-for the pur-
pose of stifling arguments which
were dreaded."-Political Tactics, 2,
Works, 361.

2 On the 12th March, 1771, the
minority divided the house twenty-

three times, in resisting the punish-
ment of the printers of the debates;
and Burke said of these proceedings,
"Posterity will bless the pertinacity
of that day," 2 Cavendish Deb. 377.
395.

3132 C. J. 375.

Occasions when this standing order was put in force: 136 ib. 31. 56. 111. 418; 258 H. D. 3 s. 69-88; 137 C. J. 149. 322. 346. 395. 483; 271 H. D. 3 s. 1127. 1262; 273 ib. 1280; 151 C. J. 242; 156 ib. 62. 352. 355; 157 ib. 123. 437.

report, see

p. 386.

suspension

Chapter of ways and means or any other chairman,1 for comXII. mitting the offence of disregarding the authority of the Chairman's chair, or of abusing the rules of the house by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the house, or Order for otherwise.2 Suspension under the standing order as of one or amended, 22nd November, 1882, lasted on the first more mem- occasion, for a week; on the second, for a fortnight; and bers, see 8. S. 0.18, on any subsequent occasion, for a month; but these Appendix I. periods of time were taken out of the standing order in the course of its amendment in session 1902 with a view to the substitution of other periods. As these however were not agreed upon by the house, the suspension of a member under the standing order continues for the session unless the house terminate it sooner. An amendment of the standing order made on the 7th March, 1901, provided that if through the refusal of a member who had been suspended to withdraw from the house the Speaker has to call the attention of the house to the fact that force was necessary to compel obedience to his direction, such member is thereupon without further question put suspended during the remainder of the session.5 Notices standing in the name of a suspended member are removed from the notice paper of each day as it is made out, as long as his suspension lasts. Suspension carries with it exclusion from the precincts of the house (see p. 350).

1 332 H. D. 3 s. 991.

2 The words, "or otherwise," apply to any form of disorder which it is the duty of the chair to restrain, 26th Feb. 1885, 294 ib. 1421; Mr. T. M. Healy, 142 C. J. 173. 407. The proceedings on such a motion would be exempt from interruption under the provisions of standing order No. 1, 103 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 237. 3 157 C. J. 63.

105 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 727; 157 C. J. 130. Although a motion to rescind the order for the suspension of a member or to terminate his suspension is not entitled to priority as a privilege motion, the Speaker accorded such priority on one oc

7

casion to a motion for rescinding the suspension of a member under the special circumstances of the case, as it appeared that the member had been reported in error for disobeying the authority of the chair, 90 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 699. 831.

5 156 C. J. 67.

90 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 1048.

7 When suspension is ordered on a motion not made pursuant to the standing order, withdrawal from the precincts of the house must be obtained by express terms in the resolution for suspension, 146 C. J. 481; 313 H. D. 3 s. 1417. For the extent of exclusion enforced in the case of

Mr. Bradlaugh, when ordered to

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »