the matters wholly irrelevant to the con- | with reference to peace and sideration of this question; matters prospect of their acceptance with conwhich I am perfectly convinced never fidence of our terms, and he alluded entered into your mind, Mr. Speaker, as to those who had been our former grounds for your judgment, and which enemies who were then fighting with I should have been sorry to think for the British forces. He brought up the a moment could enter your breast in special case of General Vilonel; wherecoming to your conclusion upon this sub- upon my hon. friend the Member for ject. It is necessary, in view of the line East Mayo interrupted and said that which the right hon. Gentleman has General Vilonel was a traitor. The taken, to advert to the history of this House has heard the evidence. My hon. transaction. [Ministerial cries of "Oh, and learned friend the Member for oh!"] Surely some hon. Members who Waterford has read the story, which do not realise that history would like to shows that my hon. friend the Member learn it. I maintain that the interruption for East Mayo was literally correct. of my hon. friend the Member for East Vilonel had actually been tried, conMayo was not disorderly, it was not un- demned, and sentenced for treason. Parliamentary, and it was not offensive. But, even apart from that, the stateIt was not disorderly if it was not ment was justified, because General an irrelevant interruption, and if it was Vilonel had changed sides, and after not offensive towards any Member of fighting in the ranks of his own this House. Interruptions are the countrymen, as he had been a little commonest things that occur in our before, he was found fighting in the ranks debates. In the very speech in the of our forces. Under these circumstances, course of which this interruption occurred even if there had not occurred the sentence the Colonial Secretary was interrupted for treason, there was a very obvious no less than eight times by the Leader of sense in which the observation that the Opposition, and not one of those General Vilonel was a traitor would interruptions was disorderly; not one of have been justified. I am not at all them was considered improper; and for not one of them was he called to order, although there were some lively passagesat-arms during those interruptions. Interruptions within well-understood is not applicable to this case. I would limitations are the very salt of our ask hon. Gentlemen who are disposed now debates. They allow, at the best moment, of explanation, of inquiry, of suggestion. I should like to know how this House could endure the enormously long speeches made on both sides of the House, especially from the Front Benches, if hon. Members were not occasionally relieved from the strain of earnest attention to that long-sustained eloquence by relevant interruptions. It is, then, always a question of degree and circumstance. And where the interruption is more than an interjection, the Member in possession can always protect himself by declining to yield. Where it is improper, you, Mr. Speaker, can, and do, interfere. Therefore, it can never be said that interruptions per se are disorderly. But this interruption which we are discussing was a relevant interruption. The Colonial Secretary had been dealing with the question of improved tone in the thoughts and feeling of our enemies certain that the old saying "While we love the treason If it is on our side, We hate the traitor still-" to take General Vilonel to their bosoms how they would feel if it had been, say, General Pole-Carew, or any other English General you please, who, under similar circumstances, had placed himself in this position. So the interruption was true. And it was obviously relevant as to the suggestion of the Colonial Secretary about confidence and good feeling. Again, the interruption was not personal to the Colonial Secretary in the slightest degree, and it was not, therefore, offensive in a Parliamentary sense. I deny altogether the justice or the Parliamentary propriety of the statement made by the First Lord of the Treasury that the interruption of my hon. friend was an offensive one. Words may be used, and rightly used in the freedom of debate in this House, towards men outside this House, which are not permitted to be used towards hon. Members. It is our safeguard as guardians The First Lord of the Treasury has given to the House a legal definition of a traitor. Let me give the popular sense from Webster's dictionary, which says of the public welfare to have immunity | offensive than it is; and if permitted they for what we speak of those outside, and would render life in this House almost inI am glad to say that in this Assembly tolerable. What had my hon. friend done? the defenceless generally receive adequate This was no retort made by the Colonial consideration; and, although-indeed, I Secretary, because he had not been may say because-hon. Members know attacked and he had nothing to retort that they are free from prosecutions and to. There was no personal attack upon from any legal danger, there is a praise him. If there had been, it would not worthy restraint upon what they say in have justified his course; but in truth this House affecting men outside. But the right hon. Gentleman himself made in a Parliamentary sense the words used and commenced the personal attack. were not offensive, being applied to a Under those conditions my hon. friend the stranger. In the case under notice the Member for East Mayo appealed to you, Colonial Secretary is said to have retorted, Mr. Speaker. I have agreed that there but he was not making a retort to any are numerous occasions in this House in personal attack made upon him. There which in the heat of debate words are had been no such attack-nothing said used across the floor of the House which in the slightest degree to wound his feel it may be wise for you, Mr. Speaker, ings or to excite that ardent passion which not to hear, if no hon. Member rises to we know he can sometimes hardly object. Often you may feel that the inadequately control. But, had it been terests of order may be best served by otherwise, his duty was not to meet your not intervening of your own motion;. offence with offence, but to appeal to you. and, at any rate, in that case, the House, The Colonial Secretary retorted with the no one having risen to order, would expression that my hon. friend was a have no right to complain. But although good judge of traitors. this may be so, it is not at all your practice or the ordinary custom to permit, without instant rebuke from the Chair, offences against order infinitely less gross than this offence committed by the Colonial Secretary, which was allowed to pass unreprimanded by the Chair. I have here a bushel of such precedents in your own time, Mr. Speaker, and during the time of your predecessor, to show that Speakers have felt thenselves bound at once to check the danger of what may result from the commence ment of the use of unparliamentary language by calling, without appeal, for a retractation of such phrases. But while you may do this at your discretion, with the exercise of which we can have no reason to complain when no appeal has been made to you, I maintain that the case is entirely altered when the offended Member appeals to can be no doubt whatever the Chair. Then the question has be-that the Colonial Secretary's statement was come serious, for it is the clear right of the not merely an offence against order, humblest Member of the House in such but it was a gross offence against order. a case to demand the judgment of the It was a charge of treason. There Chair as to whether the phrase which can be no doubt whatever that if a has been addressed to him is a Parliaphrase of that kind is permitted it will mentary expression or not. The reason of be impossible to keep the debates of this the strict rule against offensive language House within any rule or order whatever. to fellow Members is not that we are There are plenty of retorts to a phrase of more sacred than outsiders. It is that that kind not more unparliamentary or we are at close quarters. It is that Mr. Blake, "One who violates his allegiance, and betrays his country; one guilty of treason; one who, in breach of trust, delivers his country to its enemy." I do not think it can be suggested, even by the First Lord, that my hon. friend comes within that definition of a traitor. But no Member has the right so to stigmatise a fellow Member. Nor does my hon. friend need defence here. The First Lord of the Treasury, in defending you, Mr. Speaker, attempted to suggest faintly a repetition of the insinuation which the Colonial Secretary made against my hon. friend. I will not suppose that that was really his line of defence, but that suggestion was made. I pass it by. There are me, there is no foundation for assuming that I think there has been anything in this matter other than an error of judgment. I desire to state that most distinctly. That is my own absolute conviction. I believe it was but an error of judgment on the part of Mr. Speaker. That error, however, has appeared to us to produce results so grave that we considered it our duty to bring this matter to a final issue here. And I will add this only, that, whatever the result in the debate will not be without its fruits. I Division Lobby may be, I believe this believe that it will accomplish something to prevent the repetition of such scenes as occurred on the 20th March by preventing the repetition of such a judgment as was offence will engender heat, further sure it will have been observed that offence, and general disorder. It is based in the words which have fallen from on human nature. Therefore swift and stern repression by the Chair is the only security for decency. And when repression is refused, worse disorder will ensue. In old days offences led to duels. In some countries there military courts of honour. For hon. Members of the House of Commons there is but one court of honour, and that is the Chair. We must depend on the justice of the Chair sustained by the feeling of the House. It is absolutely essential to the decorum, the dignity, and the decency of debate that hon. Members should refrain from personal and offensive expressions towards one another; and it is just when such another; and it is just when such offences are not reprimanded and rebuked from the Chair upon appeal that an hon. Member feels, unless he has almost superhuman self-control, driven to that kind of retort which produces results which we all deplore. When an hon. Member appeals to the Chair for justice and does not receive it, it is almost certain that lamentable results will ensue. That is the reason why we feel the gravity of this situation. In this case, when an appeal was made to the Chair, you, Mr. Speaker, in effect asserted that the hon. Member who appealed to you had justly subjected him. self to this so-called retort by reason of his interruption. We cannot assent to that judgment, which does not accord in our view with the justice or truth of the case. And finding no other means whatever of obtaining redress, and there being no indication that the judgment which had been rendered on the 20th March was not to be the rule in the future, there was no alternative whatever except for us to submit the case to the decision of the House. We were not so foolish as not to be aware of what will be the result in the Division Lobby. We are quite aware of what that result will be, but that is not our business. Our business is to submit the question to the justice of the House. The First Lord of the Treasury and the Leader of the Opposition do not regard this as a question of justice, but more as a question of confidence in Mr. Speaker. We do not approach it upon that ground, but as a question of justice. Yet I am quite on that day rendered. Resolution, which has now been submitted (10.40.) MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.): This to the House, was not intended to raise what might be called the case of my suspension. Your decision upon that was not questioned, but as I have, in the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury, been, as it were, placed on my trial-he made two charges against me-I think I may ask the indulgence of the House for a few moments while I make a statement in reply. He made two distinct charges. The first charge was that I was guilty of a provocative and insulting interruption of the speech of the Colonial Secretary, tion of the language used by the Colonial and he based, to some extent, his justificagiven him. But then he went on, in very Secretary on the provocation which I had guarded language, it is true, but as I interpret him, to indicate that the Colonial Secretary, apart from the justification which I provided him with, was justified in calling me a traitor, as he practically did. Well, speaking as an Irishman, in our ears I do not know how it would sound in the ears of others-it is impossible to conceive a more insulting epithet, and the sophistries with which the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to soften the insult of that epithet are completely lost upon me. No man who could be called, with impunity, a traitor should sit in this House. [Ministerial cheers and Irish counter-cheers.] Well, why don't you carry out the logical conclusion of your cheer? Any man who would allow himself to be called a traitor without meeting a the charge as it deserved to be met, whom I did not call a traitor because he wherever it is made, ought not to be joined the British, but because I had allowed to associate with honourable men. read the account of his trial, and knew That at least is our doctrine in Ireland, that while serving under Commandantand I, for my part, will never allow General Botha, under his own flagany man to call me a traitor without which, remember, was as much a flag giving him on the spot my opinion demanding loyalty as your flag—he was about him. The expression I used in accused of entering into communication saying that General Vilonel was with the British Commander, and was traitor was neither offensive to the tried and sentenced to penal servitude Colonial Secretary nor to any British by a legal tribunal of his own country. soldier. I frankly admit that had I He was under that sentence of penal applied that term, as the Speaker servitude when you captured him, and thought I did, to the soldiers fighting in the service of His Majesty, it would have been a gross offence; but I did nothing of the sort. The expression was not offensive, personally, to the Colonial Secretary, nor was it calculated to excite his wrath in the ordinary course of things. As a matter of fact, I had sat listening with intense interest to the statement and argument of the Colonial Secretary. One would imagine that I had been interrupting him offensively the whole evening, but it was quite the contrary. I venture to say that he had not a more attentive or a more silent listener in the House than myself. But that was not the case all over the House. He was interrupted five or six times by the Leader of the Opposition. Was that disorderly I only allude to that for the purpose of showing what ought to be a matter of course. The fact is that interruptions have never been held to be disorderly. Take the case of the First Lord of the Treasury. He is constantly interrupted, and yet he always shows absolutely good humour and appears to enjoy it, and they help him along in his speech. To interrupt is not disorderly. It is consistent with the continual practice of the House, if the interruption is within proper limits-if it is ad rem and not offensive. What provoked this interruption of mine ? The Colonial Secretary on this occasion was engaged in an argument proving the success, to his own satisfaction, of the conciliatory policy then going on. He came to the question of General Vilonel, and I, feeling strongly, not as a pro-Boer, but from the British point of view, as to the possibility of peace in South Africa, thought, and think still, it was a great blunder, a grievous error, to employ such a man, Mr. Dillon. You, adopted him as one of your own Generals. At all events, I may be pardoned for taking a strong view in such a case. When the right hon. Gentleman tries to make light of the charge of traitor, perhaps he does not know that that charge carries with it, to us Irishmen, infinitely bitter recollections. No word that can be used against an Irishman is so bitter as the word traitor, and I, Sir, hold that in raising this discussion tonight we are amply justified, and I hold the House is of far more importance than that the issue we have brought before hon. Members would gather from the First Lord of the Treasury, who concluded by saying that they came down in these numbers to support the Chair. No doubt this Motion will be defeated by an overwhelming majority. Sir, had great predecessors in that Chair, and they had greater difficulties to contend with than you have had. Those who remember the old days of 1880, 1881, and 1887 in this House will recall the difficulties which the occupant of that Chair had to deal with. In those days terrible scenes were enacted in the House. Members of the Irish Party were suspended again and again, and at one time the entire Party was driven out of the House. But throughout all those storms of passion the Chair never lost the confidence of the persecuted minority, and when Lord Peel came to retire at a later of thanks to him. Now, Sir, I hold that period, the Irish Party joined in the vote the triumph of the Chair is not to defeat majority. The true triumph of the Chair a vote of this kind by an overwhelming is to obtain the confidence of the minority in the House. The real triumph of the Chair is to convince the smallest minority in the House that they can have the protection of the Chair when the majority is most intolerant and most clamourous. I confess that in this protection. When I used language which instance I left the House with a bitter I frankly admit is intolerable in any sense of injustice, which I still feel, and legislative Assembly, I was punished, but that sense of injustice was aggravated by the original cause and author of the the fact that, without any provocation, scene was allowed to go scot free. I was subjected to a foul and intolerable insult, and that when I appealed for pro(10.53.) The House divided:-Ayes, tection to the Chair I was denied that 63; Noes, 398. (Division List No. 165.) Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Allhusen. Augustus H'nry Eden Archdale, Edward Me vyn Bailey, James (Walworth) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) O'Dowd, John Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Leamy, Edmund Lundon, W. MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. M'Fadden, Edward M'Govern, T. M'Hugh, Patrick A. M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Markbam, Arthur Basil Mooney, John J. Murphy, John Nannetti, Joseph P. NOES. Bigwood, James Black, Alexander William Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Cayzer. Sir Charles William O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Sheehan, Daniel Daniel White, Patrick (Meath, North) TELLERS FOR THE AYES- Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Dewar, F. R( [''rH'mlets, S. Geo. |