Lord Hartington cordially supported the principle of the motion, and
the general suggestion that if you are to punish Obstruction at all, you must do it by striking at the individual offender. Moreover, he promised to aid the Government in carrying out its plan, if the Government did not think fit to accept any of his or other Members' friendly criticisms. He remarked that proposals of this kind were usually submitted first to the Leaders of the Opposition, and though he did not in the least complain that this had not been done in the present case, be warmly repudiated the notion that there was any reason to believe that the Opposition felt lees disposed to put down obstruction, or any more sympathy with obstruction for obstruction's sake, than the Government. He thought the proposed Standing Orders should be self-acting, and not require a vote of the House to give them effect. He- would give the naming of a Member, as obstructing busi- ness, by the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees, at once the effect of suspending him for the remainder of that sitting. And as regarded any act of repeated obstruction, he would have it punished by a much more serious penalty than a week's suspension ; but he would not enforce so serious a penalty without the approval of a Standing Committee of Order, to whom the obstructive acts complained of should be subtnitted by the Speaker or Chairman of Committees. Lord Hartington, in short, cordially supported the Government, only throwing out a few suggestions, to strengthen the proposals.
