Had this determination been announced by ordinary Member it would not have possessed importance likely to affect future course of debate. But Swift MacNeill is justly recognised as one of the highest authorities on the science and practice of Parliamentary procedure. If he is able to support his contention, that a Member may of his free will, in exercise of his mature judgment, divide the House into groups of families (as if they were counties of Ulster) and say, "I will not be interrupted by this one or that," whilst it would have useful effect in curtailing proceedings would obviously require nice discrimination.
There are in the present House several family names represented by various Members, not all sitting on same side of House. To take a single example, there are the Wilsons. Like the family of the child with whom Wordsworth conversed, they are seven. If Swift MacNeill's precedent be established, a Member rising to continue debate might, by way of preface, remark, "I am not going to be interrupted by any gentleman of the House of Wilson."
In this particular case A. S. Wilson, whose contributions to debate are exclusively interjectionary, would be cut off from the exercise of a talent that frequently enlivens a sitting.
Swift MacNeill's own case is not free from difficulty. The Speaker is "a gentleman of the House of Cecil." Is he henceforward to be debarred from interrupting the Member for Donegal by calls to order?
Business done.—Bonner Law, master of Parliamentary tactics, obliged Government by moving vote of censure. Challenge hilariously accepted. Great muster of Ministerialists. On division what was meant as vote of censure was practically turned into vote of confidence, carried amid enthusiastic cheering by majority of 93 in House of 597 Members.
Golfing Enquiry.
"Can any reader say whether a coloured attached ribbon (6ft. of ½in. red) is allowable by the game, merely as an aid in locating the flying ball."—English Mechanic.
Answer. Yes. So is a gramophone (2ft. by 3ft.), and it is more certain.