It is with very great reluctance that I intervene in this Debate. I have never known a case in which a Motion of this kind has been made by the Leader of the House, on his responsibility not as head of the Government, but as representing the corporate sense and authority of the House of Commons, when it has not been accepted. I should be very sincerely anxious for our future if we were to set such an evil precedent as is suggested to-day. Do not let it be supposed that I am for a moment extenuating the gravity of the offence which has been committed. It is one of the worst, in a long Parliamentary experience, which it has been my ill-fortune to witness. Nor can I wonder at the degree of feeling which has been shown by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), who we all know is in disposition and practice one of the humanest of men, when a suggestion apparently, as he thought, personally directed against him was made. There is a fact, and a very important fact, which has been, as far as I have heard, completely ignored in this dis- cussion. It is true that we ought to vindicate the authority of the House of Commons. At the same time we ought, not to be forgetful of the interests of constituencies. The prolongation of a sentence of suspension is, in substance, a temporary disfranchisement of the constituencies which these hon. Members represent. In the case of Mr. Moore—a very bad case, in all its circumstances—when I took the responsibility as Leader of the House, after the expiration of three weeks' suspension, of moving that he be re-admitted, without apology, I said that I thought it a very serious thing to deprive a constituency of its representation in the House for a longer time than is absolutely necessary in order to vindicate our traditions and our Rules of Order. I hold that opinion still. That Motion was assented to by the then Leader of the Opposition, the late Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Bonar Law). Perhaps you will allow me to say, Mr. Speaker, that the offence on that occasion was directed against yourself. You were at that time our Chairman of Ways and Means. The Chairman of Ways and Means, now occupying the Chair as Mr. Speaker, said on that occasion: I am in full accord with everything the Prime Minister has said. … I am sure that whoever happened to be in the Chair would take the same view. We have, therefore, in that case, the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chairman of Ways and Means all assenting to the view that the dignity of the House had been sufficiently vindicated by a suspension of three weeks' duration, even without apology, and that the rights of constituencies must not be ignored. I do net know of any other case since 1902 where a Member's suspension has been continued more than three weeks—[HON. MEMBERS: "Victor Grayson!"]—except the case of Mr. Grayson. Mr. Grayson on the first occasion, I think, described the majority of Members of this House as traitors, and on the next day he described them as murderers. Thereupon, on his being named by Mr. Speaker, I moved the ordinary Motion for his suspension. That happened on the 16th October, 1908, at the beginning of the Autumn Session. On the 17th December, exactly two months later, I was asked by Mr. Belloc, who was then a Member of the House, if I would afford facilities for a Motion for the re-admission of Mr. Grayson, in view of the fact that the procedure on the suspension of Members was in a state of ambiguity. We were then within two days of the prorogation, and I said: I do not think at this period of the Session, when the business of the House is so nearly finished, that there would be any advantage in giving facilities for a Motion to readmit the hon. Member. If earlier representation had been made, and there was a desire that the House should express an opinion upon the matter, I should have been glad to have given an opportunity. I would have given that opportunity. That case cannot be taken as a serious exception to the uniform practice of the House. It is, I think, very discreditable to the House of Commons that this rule as to suspension should be in its present condition. It has remained so for 21 years. It was passed in 1902, and it is an extraordinary thing that we have in our Standing Orders this singular provision: If any Member be suspended under this Order, his suspension on the first occasion. It is an incomplete sentence. It means nothing, and it comes to nothing. There we have remained for 21 years. The old rule for which this rule was substituted provided a graduated scale. On the first occasion the suspension should continue for one week—that was what Lord Balfour had in mind in the case of Mr. Dillon—on the second occasion for a fortnight, and on the third or any subsequent occasion, one month, so that under the old practice the suspension was never contemplated to be longer than a month. Under the old rule which was abrogated by this incomplete sentence in 1902, the utmost punishment that was ever contemplated, even when the offence was repeated twice or three times, was a period of one month. These four hon. Members have been out of the House for five weeks. If our procedure had remained as it was before 1902, even if they had repeated their offence, their suspension would have come to an end before now.

What possible objection can there be to this Motion? You have in the case, which is by far the most relevant, of Mr. Moore, the combined opinion of the then Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition and he Chairman of Ways and Means, assented to without Division, and, as far as I know, without adverse criticism in any quarter of the House, that in normal conditions a sentence of three weeks is sufficient. These Gentlemen have been suspended for a longer term than that. I think the House of Commons would be taking a retrograde step in objecting to this Motion—I have nothing to say in extenuation or defence of the offence that has been committed—and acting with a harshness that it has never previously shown, and would inflict upon these constituencies a prolongation of their compulsory non-representation in this House which the circumstances do not justify. I appeal very strongly to the House to support the Motion made by the Leader of the House, and to carry it without a dissenting voice.