RULES OF DEBATE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17281, 23 September 1916, Page 7

RULES OF DEBATE.

WHAT IS "UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE?" POWERS OF'OHAIRSIEN. AUTHORITIES GIVE UNLIMITED DISCRETION. A correspondent of tho "Lyttelton Times" has tvritten in reference to a recent report of proceedings at a meeting of a local body in which a member who had called another a "special pleader" for a person who had made an application to the local body, was asked by the chairman to withdraw his remark, and upon refusal was asked to retire while the remaining members discussed his conduct. Tho correspondent says that it is questionable whether such a remark as that reported to have been made lay outside the bounds of order in the Parliamentary sense, and suggests that it might be of public interest if the principles involved were stated in these columns. In such a case it. is impossible to do more than quote authorities and precedents, and it may be said at once that tho highest authorities give the chairman of any assembly bound by the ordinary rules derived from Parliamentary procedure a practically unlimited discretion regarding the utterances or conduct which constitute a speaker "a disorderly member." Precedents, of course, .in tho great ma- . jority of instances give examples only of words or phrases which have been held to bo " unparliamentary," and a chairman is not precluded by these precedents from taking exception to any utterance which in his opinion is an' offonco. against good tasto, unjust, vehemently accusative, ill-tempered, or in any way likely to imperil a perfectly calm and reasonable discussion of the matter "at issue. • Tho extent to which a.chairman will take advantage of his discretionary powers in this respect depends in practice very largely upon the temperament of the individual and the character of the assembly over which he presides. The speaker of tho House of Commons, for instance, is expected to draw a tighter rein on his assembly than the president of a sports club need attempt to emulate, but in each case 'the fundamental Tight of the chairman to exerciso his own discretion as to what is "disorderly" or "unparliamentary" rests on the same basis, and is equally strong. '.'.-.' ''.-./., , The broad principle is enunciated hy the standard authority, Sir T. Erskine

1 ' " <■■ ' ' May's '' Parliamentary Procedure ":— " The use of temperate and decorous language is never more desirable than when a member is canvassing tlie opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate. The imputation of bad motives, or motives different from those acknowledged; misrepresenting the language of another, or accusing him, in his turn, of misrepresentation; charging him with falsehood or deceit; or contemptuous or insulting language of any kind—all these are unparliamentary, and call for prompt interference." Among the leading cases quoted by May as examples of unparliamentary expressions are tho use of the words " calumnious charges " and " factious opposition." The use of tho, term "dodge" to describe a political action; to accuse a member of having " jockeyed'' a measure; with having ately raised a false issue"; with being a "hypocritical lover of libertv," and with being "guilty of falsehood "r these havo all been adjudged at one time or another, "unparliamentary." It is unparliamentary to accuse a member of having made "rude remarks." or to describe him as "a villain," The Speaker of the House of Commons has even taken exception to the words of a member who :said another "had passed a somewhat impertinent censure." The word."impertinence "■' is definitely barred by no fewer than four precedents. Sir Reginald F. D. Pnlgravo* one or the co-editnrs of the later editions ot May's "Parliamentary Procedure," in his work, "The Chairman's Handbook," the standard authority in Britain for the conduct of public meetings and meetings of local bodies, establishes the discretionary power of the chairman very clearly:— r. . "As regards the genera] maintenance of order, it rests solely in a chairman's discretion whether or no he brings_ words or behaviour, presumably objectionable, under the reprehension of the meeting., .His conduct in this respect is not open to. adverse comment." ~.'. i Under the ." Rules, Orders and Forms of Procedure relating to Public Business" of thi? House-of Commons, the Speaker or Chairman of Committee may not only deal with a member guilty of disorderly conduct by ' naming " him, and moving his suspension, but he may order the withdrawal from tho House in custody of tho Sergeant-at-Arms of any member guilty of "grossly .disorderly" conduct. It is at the discretion of the Speaker or chairman at all times to determine what conduct is or is not "disorderly" or "grossly disorderly." This bears out the broad principle enunciated in Palgrave's " Guide," that the chairman is the sole judge as to whether utterances are offensive or not. The Standing Orders of the New Zealand House of Representatives follow fairly closely tho principles and even the text of tho House of Commons Standing Orders on this subject, but the right of the Speaker to order the withdrawal of a member without motion is not specifically conferred.' There is, however, a provision which says'that nothing in the Orders shall be taken to deprive the House of the power of proceeding against any member " according to .ancient usages,: which might reasonably be taken to empower "the Sneaker to take action m accordance with the usages of the "Mother of Parliaments." In tho case cited by the correspondent, therefore, the chairman was well within his rights, -under the definition bv May of unparliamentary language, under 'the rule of Palgrave, which places the chairman's rulings on such a subject beyond challenge and under the principle of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, which make the Speaker the only judge as to what is ''disorderly" or "unparliamentary."