( addressing himself to the Clerk, who, standing up, pointed to him, and then sat down ): Mr. Webster, I have to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the resignation of the right hon. James William Lowther, late Speaker of this House, gives leave to proceed forthwith to the choice of a new Speaker.

( addressing himself to the Clerk, who, standing up, pointed to him, and then sat down ): Mr. Webster, we owe immediate attention to the Gracious Message just received from His Majesty, and it becomes our duty, and our privilege too—a privilege to which we tenaciously cling—to proceed to the election of a Speaker. I therefore beg to move, "That the right hon. John Henry Whitley do take the Chair of this House as Speaker."

It is my absolute conviction as to his pre-eminent fitness for this high position which impels me to submit this Motion. There is an element of sadness in the situation, for, in the person of Mr. Lowther, we are losing a Speaker who compelled the respect, the admiration, yes, and the affection of all the Members of the House. Opportunity was given to me at the birth of this Parliament of giving expression to what was but a poor summary of all that we feel about him. Twenty-four hours ago we listened to highly eloquent tributes to his personality from those who can be called great speakers in every sense of the term. They spoke most admirably and adequately as to the regard and the reverence in which he is held by every one of us; and, with those words ringing in my ears, it would ill become me, with such powers as I can command, to dwell on a topic to which such ample justice has been done. Suffice it to say that Mr. Lowther is a man in whom were combined all those pre-eminent qualities which fit a Member to preside over the deliberations of this House.

Hon. Members will believe me when I say that I rate it as a very high honour indeed that, for the second time, I should have been asked to take a leading part in such proceedings as those upon which we are engaged to-day; but I am very well aware that my prominence on this, as on the former occasion, is mainly due to my great weight of years. It is also due to a general desire, a traditional desire, to accentuate the fact that it is the House of Commons, that it is its Members as members, that it is the rank and file, who choose the Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] There is, perhaps, meaning in those cheers. There seem to be some who are actuated by an uneasy apprehension lest that fact should be forgotten. Let them reassure themselves. I have been a Member of the House for 36 years, all the time as a private Member. I have never aspired to be anything else, and I can assure them that there is none here more jealous than I am where the rights and privileges of private Members are concerned. In my experience it has been the habit of those in authority, on such occasions as these, at long intervals, to sound deeply the minds of private Members, and to be influenced, not only by that opinion which is at all times copiously articulate, but also by the wishes of the less obtrusive, the more reticent. To my knowledge, infinite trouble has been taken in that sense on this occasion.

Again some are greatly concerned to raise their voices in repudiation of the assumption that the Chairmanship of Committees should be looked upon as a stepping-stone to the Speaker's Chair. I agree with them. I heartily agree with them. I have known more than one Chairman of Committees whose character, admirable though it might be, ill fitted him for such promotion. But then, on the other hand, neither should tenure of office as Chairman of Committees be regarded as a disqualification; for were such to be the prevalent view, we should have been deprived of the quite invaluable services of Mr. Speaker Lowther. If in the Chairman has been recognised a particular aptitude for the wise control of this Assembly, without generating any sense of constraint, if the office of Chairman has been filled with honour and without reproach, why, the office shows the man. In no position in this House does a man so lay bare his character to all, so intimately reveal his inmost self. Unassisted by all the traditional authority attaching to the Speakership, the Chairman is tested suddenly and continuously by every kind of unforeseen contingency. Well has Mr. Whitley stood that test. The courteous ease with which he has controlled our debates in Committee may have generated in new Members the delusion that his duties and responsibilities were light and the difficulties of his position but trivial. It would be well could they realise how chaotic can conditions in Committee become under a Chairman less capable when political passions are aflame.

Mr. Whitley has an unrivalled knowledge of the rules and usages of this House; he may be trusted to uphold order and to maintain our privileges with authority and dignity, and at the same time to assert himself without offence, with wisdom, and with moderation, with that moderation of tone which to me is always a sign of strength, although it is not always so regarded in every quarter of the House. In his case the greatest tact, the greatest consideration for the susceptibilities of hon. Members have been allied to alacrity of decision. Firm but forbearing, conspicuously sincere, he will preserve those traditions which we value so highly and which have made of the House of Commons the model for legislative assemblies all the world over; and, while preserving those traditions, he may be trusted to mould them almost insensibly to meet ever-changing conditions.

I well remember the first occasion on which I took part in the election of a Speaker in this House in the Parliament of 1885. I well remember the speech made on that occasion by Mr. John Bright in seconding the choice of Mr. Speaker Peel. Unfortunately, I cannot recall his words, but they were characterised by all that purity of English and that wise economy of rhetoric which so distinguished his unrivalled eloquence. He told us how he marvelled at the invariably patient, courteous, and helpful demeanour, at all times and all hours, of the Speaker, when he was consulted by hon. Members, and was perhaps wearied by their own rather paltry difficulties. With that gift of unfailing patience, in no degree due to lack of strength, Mr. Whitley is endowed to a very remarkable extent. Moreover, I have no hesitation in saying that he has imbued the whole House with a sense of his intense desire to serve its true interests faithfully and without sparing himself. We have learned to respect him, and I have no doubt at all that his tenure of the Speaker's Chair will have the result of doubling his claims upon our respect. It would be impertinent in me, and painful to him, were I in his presence to dwell longer upon merits and qualifications which we all recognise, and I will only repeat the words used by Mr. Disraeli on an occasion similar to this. He has our regard as serious anxieties of these days have made us so prone? Could it be so, it is not too much to say that this change of tone would be welcomed by an anxious and watchful public as a patch of blue through the thunder clouds. With all the strength of which I am capable would I plead that a generous spirit of unanimity may this evening shine through the gloom.

It is my agreeable privilege, as the senior Member of the Labour party, to second the Motion submitted to the House by my right hon. Friend.

3.0 P.M.

After the speech to which we have listened, I feel I need but detain the House for a very few moments. The selection of an occupant of the Chair becomes an increasingly responsible duty, and one which the House ought not, and I believe will not, undertake in a casual or lighthearted spirit. The work of this House of Commons, as a great authority reminded us yesterday, becomes more exacting. The efficient and dignified discharge of its heavy and important duties is vital to the maintenance of public confidence in our Parliamentary institutions, and to the orderly and constructive development of the nation's affairs. Never was this confidence more needed in our Parliamentary institutions than today, when so many of the masses of the people are tempted to look to other machinery for securing great changes upon which they have set their mind. Mr. Speaker can play an important part in securing and retaining public confidence in this House. Accordingly, when considering any nomination for the high office of Mr. Speaker, the House should satisfy itself that the nominee possesses in adequate measure the outstanding personal qualities which are essential to success.

In this connection, our task of selection is rendered much more difficult by the splendid personal qualities, ripe experience, and the unique record of the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Speaker. Agreement is complete that he presided over our deliberations with commanding success, impressive dignity and even-handed justice, which few could equal, and none could surpass. Notwithstanding this exceptionally high standard, it is with quiet confidence we commend to the House the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax. He is no stranger either to the procedure of the House or to the Chair. During the many years in which he acted as Chairman of Ways and Means, he gained that technical training and that varied experience, which, added to his mastery of the rules of Procedure, should thoroughly qualify him to direct the proceedings of this House. The manner in which he performed his previous difficult and onerous task leads us confidently to anticipate that he will exercise the power and authority invested in the President of this Chamber with strict impartiality. We are convinced that the high traditions of the Chair will be maintained, if entrusted to his guardianship. We firmly believe that, if given the confidence of all sections of the House, our right hon. Friend will preside over its deliberations with tact and judgment, with firmness and fairness, with dignity and courtesy, and in harmony with those traditions which have been established by the distinguished Speakers who have presided over the destinies of this great deliberative assembly.

May I make one more point? In 1916 the Government of the day required a wise and an experienced Chairman for a difficult and delicate inquiry into the relations between employers and employed. I remember on that occasion venturing to suggest to my colleagues in the Cabinet our present nominee, and may I claim that he presided over that Committee with tact, judgment and impartiality, and that his services in the Chair were a powerful factor in securing the unanimous recommendations which resulted from the inquiry. May I remind the House that, included in the recommendations was the formation of the Joint Industrial Councils which are now an important part of the machinery for adjusting relations in our industrial life? It may be said that these councils have not as yet done all that was expected, but, in the opinion of many of us, the best work of these councils has yet to be done, and, whatever work they do, they will stand associated as a memorial with the name of the right hon. Gentleman, who, I hope, will be unanimously selected as our Speaker. Finally, may I say that, in seconding the nomination of Mr. Whitley, I do it with the unanimous approval and support of all the Members of the House with whom I am directly associated. I hope that that is a precursor of the general unanimity of all sections of the House in support of the Motion which I have the honour to second.

I hope it will not be considered presumption if I venture to offer a very few observations upon the Motion which has been proposed and seconded by my two right hon. Friends. If what I have to say may appear to disturb the unanimity of our proceedings, I think I may promise that, in spirit, at all events, it will not involve any rejection of the eloquent appeal that has been made from both sides of the House, because I wish to make it plain, at the outset of my remarks, that I am actuated by no sort of disrespect—far from it—to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax; still less by any sort of hostility, on personal grounds, to his selection as the Speaker of this House. Indeed I may go so far as to say, having listened carefully to the two eloquent speeches that have been made, that I do not dissent from one single word which has been uttered by both my right hon. Friends in personal recommendation of the right hon. Member for Halifax. But there is a question here involved which has nothing whatever to do either with the personality, or the character, or the abilities of the right hon. Gentleman, all of which I freely admit abundantly qualify him for the position for which he is proposed.

The question to which I refer is a constitutional question, and there are a good many Members of the House who think it a constitutional question of sufficient importance to justify us in calling the attention of the House to it, even though we can only do so through the form of a protest against the candidature of the right hon. Gentleman I start with the proposition which, when stated in general terms, I believe will be accepted by every Member of this House, and to which my right hon. Friend who moved this Resolution himself paid homage. That proposition is, that the Speaker of the House of Commons is appointed by the free choice of the Members of the House. This right freely to elect the Speaker is one of the most ancient and one of the most cherished privileges of this House As all hon. Members know, it was originally asserted to provide a defence against the encroachment by the Crown on the liberties of the people. If in these modern times we no longer have any reason for apprehending encroachments from that quarter, it is because the prerogatives of the Crown have almost entirely passed into the keeping of the Cabinet. But although, of course, the Cabinet, dependent as it is upon the favour of this House, can offer no real menace to popular liberty as the Crown did in days of old, I submit that there is no reason on that account why this House should deliberately be prepared to surrender into the hands of the Executive Government what has always been its own particular privilege. I submit that it ought to preserve its right freely to choose the Speaker uncoerced by the Cabinet to-day as it was uncoerced by the Crown in the past.

I maintain that the Government has shown scant respect for this ancient privilege of the House. I go further, and I say they have singularly violated it in two ways—first by the manner in which they selected the candidate for the Speakership, and have promoted his candidature, and, secondly, for a reason to which I will come in a moment, by the very selection itself that they have made. I do not for a moment question the right of the Government to nominate a candidate for the Speakership. In doing so, as we all know, they are following the precedents. But I believe that in the past the greatest possible pains have always been taken beforehand to ascertain whether any proposed candidature would or would not be acceptable to the majority of Members of the House. I heard, and with a good deal of surprise, the statement by my right hon. Friend who proposed this Motion that those steps had been taken upon this occasion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Well, as for that, I can only say, so far as anything I have been able to ascertain goes, those steps must have been very perfunctory, and very inadequate. I can only say that I myself was at a meeting upstairs a short while ago where it was ascertained that out of upwards of 70 hon. Members present, only one in the room could say that either directly or indirectly had his views been sounded upon the question. I do not know what steps may have been taken as regards hon. Members opposite, but I believe I am justified in saying that, so far as concerns the largest body of the Govern- ment's own supporters, no trouble whatever was taken to consult them.

So great was the dissatisfaction caused by this neglect to ascertain the views of hon. Members, that a proposal was made to bring forward some other candidate in opposition to the nominee of the Government. Some names were mentioned. These included the names of Members of the Government themselves. We were thereupon informed that no Member who occupied a seat upon the Front Bench would be allowed to accept nomination, and that consequently it would be useless to approach him. Surely this was interfering in a very arbitrary way, and so narrowing the choice of hon. Members? It could not be alleged that there was any hostility to the Government in the willingness to confer upon one of themselves the highest possible honour that this House could bestow. I should not have thought it would have been alleged that the stability of the Ministry was so precarious that it would be seriously jeopardised by transferring one single Minister occupying a subordinate office from the Front Bench to the Chair.

Having thus made it perfectly clear that the House of Commons would be considered guilty of contumacy if it did not accept with becoming meekness the dictation of the Cabinet, Ministers proceeded to show how complete was the contempt in which they held this ancient right and privilege. May I remind hon. Members of the language used by the Press in regard to the selection of the candidate? It was announced in the Press in these terms: cat out of the bag, because if anything improper was done, it was not in announcing the appointment of a new Chairman of Ways and Means, but in making that appointment. The making of that appointment amounted to this: it showed that the Government regarded their nomination of a candidate for the Chair as so completely tantamount to his election that there was no occasion even to pay the homage of decent pretence to the idea of any initiative in the matter residing beyond the narrow limits of the Treasury Bench.

Under these circumstances, and especially when we are told, as we were, that in the event of a Division being taken on this occasion the Government Whips would be instructed to tell at the Table, there was nothing for us to do but to submit. May I say that those of us whose views I am trying to express are not opponents of the Government. I may claim, I think, that there are few Members of this House who have been more consistent and more wholehearted supporters of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister than myself. As far as I know there are none of those with whom I have been in communication over this matter who would take any more pleasure than I do in going into the Division Lobby against the Government. While we have to submit, I do think that we are entitled to record our protest against the course of action by the Government, which we believe to be a serious invasion of our rights as Members of this House.

But that is not all. I said that there were two grounds of complaint. The first is the manner of selection and the promotion of this candidature, and the second ground is the selection that was made. I consider that the constitutional question is more deeply involved in the selection made than in the manner of its conduct, because the Government nominee is the Chairman of Ways and Means. I believe I am right in saying that with only one single exception there has never been a Speaker in the past who, before being promoted to the Chair, had occupied the position of Chairman of Ways and Means. Unfortunately, the single exception is the great Speaker who bade farewell to us last night. I say "unfortunately" for this reason, because precedents, if immediately followed in this House, are apt very quickly to crystallise into tradition, and if on two consecutive occasions the occupant of the Chair at the Table is transferred to the Chair of this House, depend upon it the Chairman of Committees, whoever he may be, unless obviously unfit for his duties, will be looked upon as possessing a right of promotion to the vacant Chair which it would be a slur upon him to pass over.

By what you are doing now you are conferring upon the Chairman of Committees for the time being a prescriptive right to the succession just as, if I may take an historical analogy in the constitution of the Holy Roman Empire, the King of Rome acquired a prescriptive right to succeed to the Imperial dignity, which was nominally elective. When you have established that state of affairs in this House the last vestige of the ancient rights of the House, as distinguished from the executive Government, will have disappeared. For this reason. The Chairmanship of Committees is unquestionably in the gift of the Government, and the House has nothing whatever to do with it. [HON. MEMBER: "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members who hold a different opinion will have an opportunity of giving their reasons. I assert that the appointment to the Chairmanship of Committees is a matter for the Prime Minister and the Government, and the House has nothing to do with it. When, therefore, the usage shall have grown up following the precedent of to-day by which the Chairman of Ways and Means has become the heir-presumptive to the Speakership, it means that the latter office—the great office of the Speaker of the House of Commons—passes for ever out of the hands of the House of Commons and becomes the gift of the Government of the day.

It may be said, and one of my right hon. Friends did say, that the Chairman of Committees, by virtue of the experience he has gained in that office, is likely to be exceptionally qualified for the duties of the Speakership. I do not for a moment deny that, but if that is to be the accepted and acknowledged procedure in the future, would it not be far better at once to get rid of the pretence that has no longer any reality behind it? Let the House formally by Resolution passed in this House Surrender into the hands of the executive Government the rights which they have hitherto cherished, the right of selecting freely and without coercion the occupant of the Chair. There are, however, certainly some of us who hope, notwithstanding what is being done to-day, that the rights of Members may still be preserved, and it is in order that those who come after us may know that the event of to-day did not pass without challenge in the House of Commons that, while freely and gladly acknowledging the personal and exceptional qualifications of Mr. Whitley for the Speakership, it is for that reason I have ventured to make this protest against what some of us believe to, be, if not unconstitutional, at all events very high-handed action on the part of the Government in interfering with the rights of the House.

I do not propose to make a long speech on this subject. I have seldom approached a speech in this House with greater anxiety than I do this afternoon, not on account of consequences which may happen to myself, but from a fear that I should not do justice to the rights of private Members on behalf of whom I desire to say a very few words. I do not intend to go over again the facts which have been so admirably put forward by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. R. McNeill), but I desire on behalf of the great mass of private Members of this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!" "Certainly not!" and "Withdraw!"]

Speak for yourself.

I think hon. Members might hear the conclusion of my sentence. I am not claiming in any sense to oppose the election of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax on behalf of private Members. I am claiming that the rights of the whole mass of private Members should be reserved by this House. It is desirable that all the rights of private Members should on every possible occasion be preserved, because I am one of those who feel that in the rights of private Members lie the real power of this House of Commons. In this Chamber it is not only the Members of the Front Bench but the whole private Members who possess the real power, not merely to control the affairs of our own nation, but through the private Members of this House goes out to those great Dominions beyond the seas who follow us and found their Parliaments upon us, the power which controls and unites this great Empire.

Private Members have always insisted upon these rights. For centuries they have stuck up for them, and some of us feel that we are only doing what is right in standing up for those rights against the possible usurpation on the part of the Executive this afternoon. I am not going to make the slightest challenge to the proposal made that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax should be elected to the Chair of this House. I am merely one of those who desire to associate myself, it may be at the moment not with the approval of all private Members in what I am saying, but history, I think, will record the fact that this House lives on the rights of the private Members, and if those rights are not jealously preserved and jealously guarded the rights of Parliament itself will soon be at an end. It is merely because I wish to safeguard and maintain the rights of Members of the Commons House of Parliament in every detail possible that I am joining with my hon. and learned Friend in the protest he has made this afternoon. I am not going, as I say, to enter into the action of the Government, but I cannot help feeling—and I hope the House will forgive me for saying it—that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax will not be able to say that he has been elected with the free and unanimous consent of the whole of the Members of this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] This is all I wish to say. These rights and these traditions are not our own property to mutilate and destroy. They have come down from ages, and we are merely the trustees of them for ages that are to come. I have felt it my duty to say this much, and I will only add one word more, and in that I am sure the House will agree with me. It is that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax, when he is called to that Chair—as he will be called nemine contradicente —will find among those Members who have thought it their duty, and their painful duty, to make this protest this afternoon, some of the most loyal supporters of his position in the Chair.

It is with great diffidence, having only been in this hive of industry for two years, that I ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes on this occasion. The privileges and liberties of the Members of this House belong as equally to the least important Member of the House as they do to its most distinguished Member, and I venture, therefore, to suggest to the House that, it is not improper that one of the least important Members of this House should join in this discussion to-day and put forward a point of view on which he can speak with very real and sincere conviction. I approach this subject from a somewhat different point of view from that of my two hon. Friends who have just spoken, and for this reason, that from the earliest time, when we knew that the resignation of our late great Speaker was impending, I had always hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax would be his successor. I recognise, not only his great ability and qualifications, but also the great personal kindness which I myself, in common, I believe, with many other insignificant Members of the House, have received from him. But my difficulty arose when the circumstances took place to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) has referred. I feel that our unwritten constitution, which is not only the envy of all other civilised nations, but has been, and will be, the great protection which will carry us through most troublesome times. It is a constitution which depends upon custom—custom which is defined and interpreted by precedent, and, therefore, when we create a precedent we are doing what is at least as important as legislating, in some respects more important. When we enact an Act of Parliament, it can be by Parliament revised or revoked if need be. But a bad precedent is irrevocable. It is like a deed of sin: once done no power on earth can undo it, and it is only by repentance and the lapse of time that it can be overcome.

If the House will bear with me for two or three minutes longer, I will venture to say that the Speakership of this House is one of the most important parts of the great and delicately-adjusted machinery of the Constitution of this country, and when the Speaker leaves us—[ Interruption ]—I hope that hon. Gentlemen in front of me on my left will at least do me the courtesy of listening to me—when the Speakership becomes vacant we may congratulate ourselves on the fact that we have many spare parts to replace that which is gone—many spare parts which are quite good for the purpose, and it may matter little which we choose. But the importance for us is that it is our duty to place that—spare part in position. The time may not be far off when a Government of this country may attempt to usurp the liberties of the people somewhat in the way in which it has been done by the Crown in times past. During the years we have recently gone through we have willingly and of necessity placed almost autocratic powers in the hands of His Majesty's Ministers, and it is our business to get back that power. It may not be easy for Ministers to relinquish it, but if we are to have in the future a Government with a small majority in this House, I make bold to say that the position of Mr. Speaker is such that he might materially assist in maintaining in power in this country a Government which no longer had the support of this House. Therefore, I think that we are to be congratulated at least on this occasion that owing to the fact there is no opposition to the right hon. Gentleman's election, we shall not create on the Journals of this House anything in the nature of such a bad precedent as some of us feared. In view of what has been related by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. McNeill), it is equally necessary for those of us who have supported the candidature of the right hon. Gentleman, as well as those who desired to nominate another, that there should be placed on record, at least in the reports of the Debates of this House, the view that it is one of the great and cherished privileges of private Members of this House that they should be at liberty to elect a Speaker without fear or favour from His Majesty's Ministers upon whose advice the Crown, as the Executive of this country, acts.

I rise, by leave of the House, to make a few short observations. I do not desire, and it is neither necessary nor appropriate that I should attempt, to address the House on the merits of the Motion made by my right hon. Friend (Colonel Mildmay). I shall say nothing of the qualities of the gentleman whose name is now before the House. The Government, however, would deeply regret if it were thought in any quarter of the House that the Executive in this case had interfered with the traditional rights and privileges of this House, and I myself, if I may be permitted to say so, should doubly deplore that that thought should arise in any quarter of the House on the first important occasion concerning the privileges of this House which has arisen since I was called upon to be its Leader. It is upon that point, and upon that point only, that I ask the House to hear me for a moment. I have endeavoured to comprehend exactly the nature of the complaint made against the action of the Government, and I find it a little difficult to do so. In the election of every Speaker, as far back as we can go in modern times, it has been the practice of the Government of the day to ascertain, to the best of its ability, which Member of the House would be the most acceptable to the House. Having, as they think, ascertained that, the Government of the day have approached that Member with the request that he would allow his name to be submitted. In order to preserve the undoubted right of the House as against the Government and as against everyone else, the name has always been proposed on the Motion of an independent Member, and the judgment of the House has been submitted upon it.

That is what has been the unbroken practice, and that has been our practice upon this occasion. We have left undone nothing that our predecessors have been accustomed to do. We have done nothing that they have been accustomed to omit. Complaint has been made that the Government took inadequate measures to ascertain the sense of the House. The Government relied, and the whole House knows that we were entitled to rely, upon the advice of my Noble Friend Lord Edmund Talbot, who was lately Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. No one was a better adviser as to the feeling of this House in all quarters than he, and hon. Members know the pains that he took, whether directly by personal inquiry, or indirectly through the sources open to him, to ascertain the general sense of the House. He reported to us that, undoubtedly, the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax was the name desired by the great majority of this House, and I may be permitted to say that the very speeches which have criticised our action to-day confirmed the accuracy of the advice which my Noble Friend tendered.

It is made a complaint that—acting strictly in accordance with precedent—having invited the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax to allow his name to be submitted, the Government refused to allow, or informed hon. Members who consulted them, that they could not allow any one of their own number to stand against that right hon. Gentleman. Could any body of men of honour do otherwise? Is it possible that a body of men, bound, as are the Government, by common ties, should corporately ask one Gentleman to allow his name to be submitted, and then encourage or permit one of their own number to come forward? That is not a question of Parliamentary privilege; it is a question of conduct becoming English gentlemen. With reference to the announcement which, as I learned from my hon. Friend (Mr. McNeill), appeared in some portion of the Press, I can only say that the Government have no sort of responsibility for it. My hon. Friend, of course, has already said that, but I take the opportunity of repeating it We had no knowledge of it until it appeared in the Press, and it is an obvious slip of some writer who does not know our forms and all that lies behind them.

One word more. It has been suggested that twice to elect in succession the Chairman of Committees to the Chair of this House unduly binds the House in future. Let me say that, although it has never been customary, so far as I know, to challenge the nomination of the Government to the post of Chairman of Committees, it is not like an appointment in the Government made by the Crown or by the Prime Minister. It is an appointment proposed to the House by the Government, and ratified by the House on the Motion of the Government.

I desire, however, formally to state, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that we recognise no such inherent right in a Chairman of Committees to succeed to the Chair as has been suggested in Debate to-day. All that we claim is that the Chairman of Committees, if he has shown the right qualities, and has shown those qualities in a pre-eminent degree, and if he be the Member who commends himself more than any other to the general sense of the House, should not be the single Member on whom the choice of the House may not rest, because, on the nomination of the Government of the day or of some previous Government, he has earlier served the House in the office of Chairman of Committees. It is not every Chairman of Committees whom the House in past times would have desired, or would have thought for one moment of asking to proceed to the Chair; it is not every Chairman of Committees who has served with distinction in that capacity whose ambitions lie in the direction of the Chair. Be that how it may, it is quite clear that the freedom of the House must be maintained in this matter, and that in making our choice to-day, whatever it may be, we in no way restrict the freedom of future Parliaments to act as they think best in the circumstances in which they are called upon to make a choice.

I have taken a very unusual course in intervening from the Front Bench in a Debate of this character. I should not have done so had it not been that the criticism which has been offered of the Motion of my right hon. Friend is a criticism directed, not to the fitness of the nomination, but to the action of the Government, and that, therefore, my intervention could not be considered as in any way interfering with the free choice of the Members of this House in their election to the Chair to-day. I hope that by what I have said I have removed a misapprehension which ought not to cloud the unanimity of our proceedings.

Mr. Webster, I rise to submit myself, in accordance with ancient usage, to the will of the House. It would appear that there may be some who regard this matter of the Speakership of this House as a gift or an ambition. I confess that I regard it only as a serious call. The House knows, I believe, that I would have preferred to continue to serve it in a minor place; but this call has come to me, backed with so many kindly and generous assurances from all quarters of the House, that I have felt it to be one that no Member of this House could ignore.

Whatever may be given to me of health and strength in the future, I place, in full measure, at the service of this House. I came here 20 years ago rather reluctantly; for I had found my happiness in local work, and in the rough and tumble of comradeship with the boys of a great industrial town. Those boys, indeed, were my university. From them I learnt most of what I know; and a great piece of my heart is with them still!

As to the twenty years that I have spent in this Assembly, I have done nothing more, I think, than any other Member would have done—just the work that I was called upon to do. If I have succeeded in any way in that work, it is solely because of the kindly help which I have received from all my comrades. My two right hon. Friends who have submitted this Motion to the House have been far too flattering and over kind.

I cannot hope to compare with the distinguished men who have filled that Chair in days gone by; and, indeed, any Member who ventured on any such ambition would, I think, be filled with dismay as he thought of the proceedings yesterday. For anyone to pretend to the qualities of the great Speaker whom we have just lost would be an impertinence that would unfit him for any such office. For myself, I tremble at the idea of being called upon to follow in his footsteps. The House—if such be its wishߞwill please take me as I am; and my fellow-Members will give me a strength that I do not find in myself.

I care for the House of Commons—for its traditions and its history, for its record as the living instrument by which our fathers gained for us the liberties that we now enjoy. I care for it, and believe in it as the instrument by which we, and our children, will build up a still fairer Commonwealth. Should it be the will of the House to place me in its Chair, I will do my uttermost to maintain its traditions, its privileges, and its independence.

The House having unanimously called Mr. JOHN HENRY WHITLEY to the Chair, he was taken out of his place and conducted to the Chair by Colonel Mildmay and Mr. Arthur Henderson, and, standing on the upper step, he expressed his sincerest acknowledgments to the House as followeth: —

Before I take the Chair as Speaker of the House, I desire to render to the House my sincere acknowledgment of the honour which it has done me in placing me in this Chair, and also to renew my assurance of complete devotion to its service.

May I also—as I cease at this moment to be the Chairman of Ways and Means—voice my thanks to the Gentlemen at the Table for the loyal help they have given me during ten arduous years in the work of this House in Committee.

Mr. SPEAKER-ELECT sat down in the chair, and the Mace was placed upon the Table by the Serjeant-at-Arms.

Mr. Speaker-Elect, the House of Commons has by a great and striking act, in which it has risen above all partisanship, elected you unanimously to the highest position in its gift. I say "unanimously" because, as I understand the protest which has been entered by my hon. Friends has not been against your qualifications or your election, but against the shortcomings and delinquencies of the Government. Such a protest is natural and legitimate on all occasions, without any reference to the merits.

I can, therefore, felicitate you, Sir, upon having received the emphasised unanimity of the House of Commons, rendered all the more emphatic by the protest which has been made.

You, Sir, have been elected to a great position in troublous times. You are following one of the greatest Speakers who ever occupied that Chair, but I feel confident—from observation of the qualities which you have displayed in the position which is almost as difficult as the one in which you are now placed, as to the qualities of judgment, of complete knowledge and mastery of the forms of this House, the straight and scrupulous regard for them, a stern sense of justice, and a great calm on trying occasions—that you will adequately fill the position, even under these trying conditions.

I, therefore, venture, in these few words, to congratulate you, Sir, upon the election which has taken place, and I have to signify the pleasure of His Majesty that this House should present their Speaker on Thursday, 28th April, at a quarter before Three of the Clock, in the House of Peers, for His Majesty's Royal approbation.

Mr. Speaker-Elect, I should like, with the indulgence of the House, as one of its oldest Members, and I think—I was revolving in my memory just now—as one who has taken part in no less than nine elections of a Speaker, to join with the Prime Minister in offering to you, on behalf of all sections of the House, our warmest congratulations on your taking your seat in that Chair. I have, in the course of my Parliamentary experience, seen the Chair occupied by a succession of great Speakers—Peel, Gully, and last, but not least, Lowther. You enter, Sir, upon a great inheritance full of splendid traditions and encompassed by heavy and growing responsibilities, but it is the unanimous opinion of this assembly here to-day that there is no man among us more qualified by experience and by faculty to maintain those great traditions and to adapt them to the ever-growing and shifting requirements of Parliamentary exigencies than yourself. You enter, Sir, upon your new duties with the heartfelt good will and the most sanguine hopes of the whole House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Mr. Chamberlain. ]

Mr. SPEAKER-ELECT thereupon put the Question, which being agreed to, the, House adjourned accordingly, until Tomorrow; and Mr. SPEAKER-ELECT went away without the Mace before him.

House adjourned at Two Minutes after Four o'clock till to-morrow (Thursday).