HC Deb 19 March 1866 vol 182 cc498-507

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved "that no Select Committee do meet to-morrow before one o'clock."

MR. E. P. BOUVERIE

said, the proposal now made established altogether a new precedent, and he trusted the House would consider before adopting it. It was contrary to the constitutional and to the ancient practice of the House. It was imposing a heavy tax upon parties who were interested in the cases before the Committee, by robbing them of an hour or two hours of their time. But that was not so material as the principle of the thing. The ancient practice of the House on occasions of public fast formally proclaimed by the public and civil authorities was to meet at eleven o'clock in the morning, go to St. Margaret's Church with the Speaker, hear a sermon delivered by a rev. gentleman appointed by the House, and if the House was gratified by the discourse it expressed its thanks to the preacher, and then in some cases adjourned, and in others proceeded with its ordinary business. A practice had grown up for Committees not to sit on Ascension Day until one o'clock, and now the House was called upon to take another step in the same direction. Tomorrow was to be a Day of Fast and Humiliation for the Cattle Plague. On the propriety of that arrangement he would express no opinion; that was not the proper place to express one; but this Day of Humiliation having been announced by the Bishop of London for his diocese, to his surprise, the noble Lord the Member for Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) a few nights ago proposed to the leader of the House (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that Committees should not sit until one o'clock to-morrow; and the leader of the House incautiously and without reflection assented as he (Mr. Bouverie) understood him to say in conformity with the practice of the House. The practice of the House did not justify such a proceeding. The House knew nothing of the proclamations of the Bishop of London. Of a fast proclaimed by the civil authorities—by the Queen in virtue of her Supremacy, the House had some knowledge; but of this fast the House had no knowledge whatever. There was a minor objection to the present Motion on a point of form; but often substance was involved in form. How was this Motion to be entered on the Journals of the House? On Ascension Day the form was "That on such a day, being Ascension Day, Committees shall not have leave to sit until one of the clock." Were they to say that "the Bishop of London having issued notice of a fast in his diocese, the Committees shall not have leave to sit until one of the clock?" And upon all future occasions on which the Bishop invited his congregations to join in humiliation and fasting, was the House to prohibit the sittings of Committees? When he was sworn on the Totnes Election Committee, instead of being asked as usual at what hour they would sit, he was told the Committee was not to sit to-morrow until one o'clock. He objected, on the ground that the parties concerned had, at great expense, engaged counsel and brought up their witnesses, and because by Act of Parliament the Committee was bound to meet as early as possible. Justice ought to be attended to before fasting. The Speaker had no authority to fix the hour of the meeting of the Committee; it was the House which had to order it. By Act of Parliament it was settled that Election Committees should meet within twenty-four hours after being sworn, unless Sunday, Christmas Day, or Good Friday intervened, so that the intention of the Legislature that the business of Election Committees might be despatched as speedily as possible was clearly expressed, no exception being made with respect to fast days or holidays, except such as he had already mentioned. He thought it the duty of the Totnes Election Committee to meet to-morrow at eleven o'clock, and when the present Motion was disposed of he should feel bound to move that the Totnes Election Committee meet at that hour, for this was a question of expense to the parties, on whom a heavy fine would be imposed by delay. If the noble Lord the Member for Leicestershire and the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that the House of Commons as such ought to observe the Day of Fast and Humiliation, the proper course would have been, not to move that Select Committees should not meet before one o'clock, but to move that the House should meet at eleven o'clock, and proceed in a body to St. Margaret's Church to hear an appropriate sermon. He would divide against the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

In the first place, allow me to say, with regard to Election Committees, that when this matter was mentioned on a former day I stated that it remained for consideration whether Election Committees ought to be included in the Motion. The case of Election Committees is altogether a peculiar case. I was not aware that more than one Election Committee had been appointed, nor did I suppose that any question would arise with respect to Election Committees. As, however, such a question has arisen, I am quite willing, in conformity with what I intimated on a former day, to propose that no Select Committee other than Election Committees should meet before one o'clock. I am merely stating the view of the Government, If Gentlemen object to that Amendment, of course it is in their power to enforce their objection. I do not think my right lion. Friend was entirely accurate when he said that it was only within a very few years that a practice had arisen within this House of ordering that Committees should not meet until one o'clock on a single day in the year. Now, I believe that there are two days in the year upon which this House has regularly for a great many years—certainly for ten or twenty years—made that order, and not for one but for two o'clock. Then the question comes whether it is right that in a case where the authority of the Crown has not been put into exercise that this House should take any notice of an act done by the Bishop of London, But though the authority of the Crown is not put in exercise the practice has grown up in the House of directing its Committees on Ascension Day and Ash Wednesday not to meet till two o'clock. I remembered very well the practice originated during the first Ministry of Lord Russell. A discussion took place, and an objection having been taken then as now by my right hon. Friend, an appeal was made to the feelings of the House with regard to the coercion by Parliamentary attendance on Committees on those whose desire it was to make use of those occasions for the purpose of attending public worship. I quite agree that this is a case distinguishable from those, and I wish the House to notice what has taken place. There is a strong feeling in the country that there ought to be a Day of Humiliation appointed by the authority of the Crown with reference to the ravages of the cattle plague. Application was made in the usual course by the Archbishop of Canterbury to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in order that effect might be given in the usual manner to that desire. The Government considered that application, and they came to the conclusion that taking into view the extreme inequality of the cattle plague—taking into view that if one day were appointed it must be appointed for the whole country, whereas the degree in which the cattle plague was felt in many parts of the country was infinitely various—and taking into view that the day, if appointed by the authority of the Crown, would become a day of universal cessation from labour, they did think it their duty to reject the recommendation of the Archbishop of Canterbury. But when the question was raised in this House, and my right hon. Friend (Sir George Grey) was interrogated on the subject, he did reply that, in the opinion of the Government, the proper course to be followed was the course actually being followed in different dioceses—namely, that the bishops, after communicating with their clergy and the principal persons for the purpose of ascertaining the state of public feeling, should not enjoin—for they had no power to enjoin—but invite the community to enter into these special services. Undoubtedly it is not a matter of coercion at all. It is altogether a matter of goodwill and right feeling on the part of those who think proper to respond to the Episcopal invitation; and I must say that in my opinion those who do respond are quite right in so doing. It is under these circumstances that the Bishop of London issued the invitation which he has issued to the people of his diocese. I had had no opportunity of thinking over the matter before the suggestion was made from the Opposition side of the House, but when it was made, and we considered the purport of it, we did believe the House would be anxious, without giving any specific recognition to the act as an act of authority, to enable those of their Members who were desirous of availing themselves of it the opportunity of attending public worship upon a very sad and solemn occasion. That is the simple nature of the proceedings so far as I am concerned. I am extremely sorry—I cannot say how sorry I am—that a matter of this kind should become a subject of contention in the House. It is eminently desirable that whatever we do should be done with general goodwill; but, always excepting that peculiar case of Election Committees as to which I must say that I am not at all convinced, and which the House will dispose of as it thinks fit, I cannot think that we are wrong in the course we have taken.

MR. BRIGHT

From what the right hon. Gentleman has said it is quite clear that Government did not think it desirable to advise the Queen to order a general fast throughout the country. He says that the calamity is partial; that it is not known in many counties, and that it is barely known in others; and I think the view of the Government was probably the right one. But then comes the question whether the House of Commons, which does not represent half-a-dozen distressed counties, but represents the whole of the United Kingdom, or professes to do so—whether it should, except on action of the Crown, under the advice of the responsible Ministers of the Crown, depart from its ancient practice and establish a new precedent, because the Bishop of London has thought proper to advise a fast in his diocese on a particular day. The fast was ordered for a day last week, I believe, but for some reason or other it was changed. Well, one bishop is ordering the fast for one day and another bishop for another day. Now, only look at the difficulty in which the House will find itself placed if it adopts the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. It will be a precedent for all time—at least until it be reversed by some direct vote of the House—that if the bishop of this diocese shall, under a strong feeling of the weight of any local or general calamity—[The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: And on the indication of the Government.] I presume the Bishop of London may order a fast in his diocese without any indication on the part of the Government. If the Government thought it essential to indicate to the Bishop of London that he should order a fast, surely they might have ordered the fast for the whole country through the direct action of the Crown, and then it would have been perfectly reasonable to ask Parliament to take the course that is now proposed. I say the House of Commons will be doing that which is not consistent with its position and its dignity if it take this course merely because a single bishop—the bishop of this diocese—has fixed upon a particular day for a fast. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred to Ash "Wednesday and Ascension Day. Well, there was a good deal of difference of opinion about these days, or one of them at least, when it was discussed. I find that Members are generally rather in favour of having a holiday, as they are, for example, when the adjournment for the Derby Day is proposed. The House is so hard worked that there is no objection to a holiday on any particular day that anybody will name, but this is not a question of the House having a holiday to-morrow. It is a question whether certain persons whose interests are greatly concerned in the Committee business of the House, shall upon the fiat, not of the Queen, but of the Bishop of London, have their expenses largely increased. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has a great deal more regard, I have no doubt, for Church regulations than I have, but I ask him on this occasion to regard himself as a Member of the House, and not only as a Member, but at this moment as its most important Member, who by the weight of his influence may make law hereafter for the guidance of the affairs of this House. If he will look into Mr. May's book, which I have been studying since the House met this evening, he will find that there is nothing whatsoever in it of the kind he is now proposing; and I should be very sorry indeed if, when there is another edition of the work published, there should be a paragraph in it to say the House felt itself bound to take the same course at the intimation of the Bishop of London which it finds it decorous and proper to take on the action of the Crown and its responsible advisers. I think the right hon. Gentleman hastily, and without due consideration, accepted the proposal of the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners). I am not without hopes that the noble Lord himself, after the discussion that has taken place, may think it not necessary to press this matter, and will allow the subject to pass over by general consent.

LORD STANLEY

said, he did not think it necessary to argue the general question whether the arrangement was good or bad, but he thought it desirable that the Government should explain the distinction they took between Election Committees and Committees sitting on Private Bills. In both cases counsel attended; in both cases parties were put to considerable expense; and in both cases the inconvenience of an adjournment was very and equally great.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he did not see why any exception should be made in favour of Election Committees. The hon. Member (Mr. Bright) entirely overlooked what was at the bottom of a proposition of this kind. It was a Motion to permit a limited number of Members, for a limited period during the day, to perform what they believed to be their religious duties. It was, in fact, a case of the rights of conscience. [A laugh from the Benches below the gangway.] Notwithstanding the apparent incredulity of hon. Gentlemen opposite, there was a large number of Gentlemen in that House who believed it to be their duty to attend Divine service in the various churches in the metropolis on this solemn occasion; and if his Motion were not carried, it would compel hon. Gentlemen to be in their places in the Committee-rooms when they felt they ought to be elsewhere. It was really, therefore, a Motion in favour of the rights of conscience.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had correctly stated the purport of the letter which he addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Government adhered to the opinion therein expressed; but, a day having been set apart in many dioceses where the plague had been severely felt for special services, in order to implore the Divine blessing on the means that were adopted to arrest its ravages, and the Bishop of London having appointed to-morrow for the same purpose in his diocese, he (Sir George Grey) thought it was only right that Members of the House who desired to do so should have the opportunity of attending morning service to-morrow. Election Committees, however, were regulated by statute, and the House had only power on their being sworn to fix the hour at which they should meet on the first day of the inquiry. If, therefore, these Committees had been appointed a day earlier and were actually sitting, the House would have no power to interfere with the ordinary course of procedure.

ADMIRAL DUNCOMBE

said, that the Committee of which he was Chairman, had agreed, in deference to the notice given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to meet to-morrow till one o'clock, though they felt that many witnesses would be detained who had probably humiliated themselves in their own dioceses, whose expenses would have to be borne by sonic-body or other. He was afraid, too, that the arrangement proposed would be of very little avail for the object in view, for it being his duty to attend his Committee at one o'clock, he could not possibly attend church, as sermons were unfortunately nowadays of such great length.

MR. HUNT

said, that referring to the question of his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) in the case of Election Committees every Member was bound to attend within one hour of the meeting of the Committee, and if then absent the Chairman was bound to report the fact to the House; and unless the House should be satisfied with the excuse, it had the power to commit the absentee to the custody of the serjeant-at-arms. Members of an Election Committee, therefore, had not the same facility for being absent as Members of other Committees.

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER

I must ask the leave of the House to make a short explanation in reference to the direction given from this Chair at the time the Election Committees were being sworn. T believe that it is the usual practice that such a direction is given to Election Committees as to the hour at which they shall sit on the first day. Seeing the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the paper, as to all Committees not meeting until one o'clock, and not conceiving that any objection was about to be raised to it, I thought it my duty to inform the Committees that they should meet at the hour about to be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. I never conceived in doing so that I had myself the authority to direct the hour. I merely thought that I was calling attention to what I believed would become an order of the House, and any intimation which I have given must of course be, as I always supposed it would be, subject to, and conditional upon, the order of the House.

MR. WALPOLE

said, that if, after what had taken place, it was considered advisable to except Election Committees, there could be very few Committees, indeed, on which the Motion could take effect. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had urged the desirability of unanimity in such a matter, and, after the feeling which had been expressed in opposition to the Motion, he thought it was hardly worth while to persevere with it.

MR. ELLICE

said, that nearly two hours had elapsed since the Committee, of which he was a Member, had received the direction to meet at one, and some of his colleagues had left the House under the impression that it was a definite arrangement. It was not unlikely, therefore, if they met at eleven that some would be absent, and would have to be reported to the House. He hoped, under these circumstances, that the arrangement would be adhered to in the case of those Committees to whom the instructions had been given.

MR. E. C. EGERTON

said, he concurred with the hon, Member for St. Andrew's (Mr. Ellice), adding that in several cases intimation had been given to counsel, witnesses, &c, to meet at one, and if the Committees assembled at eleven, they would simply lose the opportunity of the sermons and waste two hours in doing nothing.

MR. ADAIR

said, that until there was an actual vote of the House no one was in a position to desire a Committee to meet at one o'clock. What was suggested was a most unusual course. He accordingly proposed that the Nottingham Committee should meet at half past eleven. If all the Members were not present within an hour of that time, it would be his duty to report the circumstance to the House, which would, he was sure, show its accustomed consideration in such a case.

MR. MOWBRAY

said, that as the only Chairman of a Committee to sit to-morrow who had not yet spoken, he might observe that he acquiesced at the time of being sworn in the Chairman's suggestion; but he looked on that direction as conditional on the decision of the House on the present Motion, and he did not think with the hon. Members for Macclesfield and St. Andrew's that any one would be misled by what had taken place. It was still perfectly competent for the Election Committees to meet at eleven, and if the House so decided, he would follow their instructions. It should be remembered, he would remark, with reference to the Question of his noble Friend (Lord Stanley), that there was a difference between these and other Committees, for Election Committees were bound to sit through the Easter holydays if their labours were not previously concluded, and it was therefore desirable that their proceedings should commence as early as possible.

Motion made, and Question put, "That no Select Committees do meet To-morrow before One of the clock."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

The House divided:—Ayes 259; Noes 112: Majority 147.