§ MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCK,who had a Notice upon the Paper to the effect, 580 "That it is expedient to remove the grating in front of the ladies' gallery in this House," which the Forms of the House precluded him from moving, said, he was once asked by an educated and intelligent foreigner how it was that whilst ladies were admitted to hear the debates of that House it was deemed necessary to enclose them in a cage, and he was unable to give any reply that would be either satisfactory to himself or consistent with the good taste and good sense of the House. The existence of the grating in question had been discussed in that House, in the newspapers, out-of-doors, and had been a source of controversy and contention amongst hon. Members themselves. Arguments had been urged against it, and the most weighty arguments had been directed against the admission of ladies at all to hear the debates. It must, however, be recollected that the presence of ladies was an acknowledged institution of that House. They had made regulations for the admission of ladies, and the plans of the architect contemplated their presence. At present the first thing they did after prayers was the balloting for admissions to the limited space which the Gallery afforded, the architectural arrangements of the House not giving sufficient accommodation to the Members of the House, the representatives of the Press, and the ladies. It was said that if ladies were admitted to the full view of the House in the manner he proposed, their presence might have an unfavourable effect upon the speeches of hon. Members. It was urged that hon. Gentlemen would become nervous or be induced to address the House at too considerable length; but they were all aware, at the present time, that every hon. Member who stood up to speak knew and felt that ladies were present, and yet he did not think any hon. Gentleman was ever disconcerted from that cause, or took up an unnecessary length of time in speaking, because ladies were listening to what was said. Therefore, when they were told that hon. Members, for the purpose of attracting attention, spoke at great length, it must be recollected there was precisely the same inducements now; and when they were told that certain hon. Members felt alarmed, and became nervous, it should be understood that there were influences at the present moment more likely to alarm them. The Strangers' Gallery 581 contained a large number of persons who came there to listen, and sometimes to criticize, and there were spaces below the Gallery which, whenever any great or technical question arose, were filled by persons interested in the subject. Again, they had places devoted to Members of the other branch of the Legislature, which places were filled whenever any subject arose affecting the dignity or jurisdiction of the other House, and yet it exercised no effect upon the speeches of hon. Gentlemen. Then they had the members of the Press listening to them; and if they could realize what might be the possible danger arising from their presence, he thought it would exercise more influence upon hon. Members than any danger arising from the presence of ladies. He was far from saying they would be misreported under any circumstances, as he did not think any hon. Member who said anything worth listening to would go unreported, though he thought they did incur, he would not say the hostility, but the displeasure, of any gentlemen of the Press; but they might be subjected to, what, to them, would be the greatest infliction possible—that of having their speeches reported verbatim et literatim. [Laughter.]The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope)laughed, but he could assure the hon. Gentleman he was not laughing at him at all. He thought that would be inflicting upon them an even greater punishment than would result from misrepresentation, and yet they went on and talked without any regard to that great danger which was impending over them. All these were influences which would exercise much more effect in alarming hon. Members than the mere removal of the grating before the Ladies' Gallery. Objections of various descriptions had been raised, some of them being of an architectural character. One hon. Gentleman had told him that if the grating were removed the whole roof might come down; but that was a matter, he thought, which might be left to their architects, and to them, also, might be left that other objection, that they might fall over. It was said again that the ladies desired that the grating should continue. If he knew that to be their wish, he should not have brought forward the Motion; but the ladies who came to the Gallery were a migratory body, and it was not easy to ascertain 582 their wishes on the subject. Most probably they were divided. As to the inconvenience which it was sometimes suggested would be experienced both by the ladies and hon. Members of the House in regard to matters of the toilette, he thought there need be no apprehension. The ladies would not be interfered with, and in wearing what they thought proper, he was sure their choice would always be consonant with good taste. In a week after the grating was gone, the ladies might come and go, and in a week or two the attention of hon. Members would entirely cease being attracted to that Gallery. ["No, no!"] He meant that he was satisfied that no inconvenience would arise from the presence of the ladies attracting hon. Members' attention. He had tested the subject by the practice of the House of Lords, and had ascertained that no inconvenience whatever had resulted from the presence of the Peeresses in that House. The hon. Member for Cambridge University stated that the difference between the two Houses in their practice on this subject was, that the Peeresses sat in the other House as a matter of privilege; while, in the Commons, they did so as a matter of favour. He differed from the hon. Member in that view; but assuming that the hon. Member was correct, the inconvenience at any time felt would not be lessened by their presence being a matter of right. But other ladies were admitted below the Bar of the other House by favour of the Usher of the Black Rod, and he had seen noble Lords, after speaking, come down to the Bar and speak to their lady friends there without any inconvenience whatever resulting. He was not, however, asking for any such privilege. They did not find that the Bar or the Bench suffered inconvenience from the presence of ladies in the Courts, nor that actors on the stage nor ministers in the pulpit were in any way affected by that cause. In the middle of the last century ladies were admitted to the body of the House of Commons; and though, owing to the particular political excitement of the time, they, with all other strangers, were necessarily excluded, yet if they went back to old usages, they would find ample ground for justifying his Motion. He found in an authoritative work on the Law and Practices of Parliament, to which they were in the habit of referring, this rule laid down— 583
By the ancient custom of Parliament and the Orders of both Houses, strangers are not to "be admitted while the Houses are sitting," and on the 18th of April, 1788, it was ordered by the Lords "That for the future no person shall be in any part of the House during the sitting of the House except Lords of Parliament, Peers of the United Kingdom not being Members of the House of Commons, the heirs apparent of such Peers or of Peeresses of the United Kingdom in their own right, and such other persons as attend that House as assistants.That did not include, therefore, the privilege of Peeresses. He also found this account with regard to the House of Commons:—On the 2nd of February, 1788, strangers were ordered to withdraw. This order was enforced against the gentlemen, but the ladies, who were present in unusual numbers, were permitted to remain. Governor Johnson, however, remonstrated, and they were also directed to withdraw; but they showed no disposition to obey, and business was interrupted for nearly two hours before their exclusion was accomplished. Amongst the number were the Duchess of Devonshire and Lady Ogle. This ended in the withdrawal of the privilege which they had long enjoyed of being present at the debates of the House of Commons.He, however, found that on the 1st of December, 1761, the interest excited by the debate in the Commons on the renewal of the Prussian Treaties was so great that Lord Royston, writing to Lord Hardwicke, said—The House was hot and crowded; as full of ladies as the House of Lords when the King comes to make a speech, and Members were standing about half-way up the floor.In the time of John Wilkes the ladies were excluded with other strangers. Years elapsed before the ladies were readmitted; but ultimately they again obtained the entrée to the House, and in 1836, when it was intended to rebuild the House, the matter was referred to a Select Committee, and they reported in favour of giving up a part of the Strangers' Gallery for the accommodation of the ladies. A grating was proposed, and the introduction of tickets not transferable, with other restrictions, which had since been in great degree relinquished without entailing any public or individual inconvenience. Now a suggestion, which he considered extremely practical, had been made in a letter he had received from a lady on the subject, which he would communicate to the House. There were three divisions of the Ladies' Gallery. That to the left was devoted to the Speaker, and with it 584 it was not proposed to interfere. With respect to the other portions of the gallery, in one of these ladies who desired to retain their seclusion might still have it, but the remaining portion he would propose to assign to those who were anxious to have a more open and unrestricted view of the House. Were that done, he believed that, after a time, the division of the gallery from which the grating was removed would be found so much more agreeable that there would be a general disposition to remove the grating altogether along the whole front of the Gallery. There was no Legislative Body in the world which shut out the ladies so rigidly as the House of Commons. From Italy to America all persons who desired to listen to the debates in the Legislative Assemblies were admitted with perfect freedom. It was only in Jewish synagogues and conventual institutions that there were gratings, and he saw no reason why the House of Commons should follow such a precedent.
§ MR. FORSYTHsaid, he did not think that the constitutional rights and privileges of the House would be endangered by taking away the lattice from the galleries where the ladies sat. The argument of his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Serjeant Sherlock), if carried to its full extent, would prove that ladies ought to sit in the House of Commons as they did in former times. He, however, was favourable to the removal of the grating in front of the Ladies' Gallery, and he was certain that if the question of placing it there were now raised for the first time, not a single Member would vote in favour of such a course being adopted. It was, he thought, in obedience to a stupid Conservatism that the grating was kept up, simply because it had been placed there. [Laughter.] He would admit there was such a thing. The House might be compared to a sort of Zoological Gardens, and in a cage there were kept a number of fair and beautiful animals to approach whom would be fatal, and who were considered too dangerous to be looked upon. What possible reason could be assigned for keeping up that objectionable latticework, which would lead a Mahomedan visitor to the House to believe that he was in his own country, unless they found a general wish for it among the ladies themselves? He saw no ground 585 for preventing the ladies from conveniently seeing hon. Members who were making speeches, and surely hon. Members themselves were not more susceptible than Members of the House of Lords. He had never heard of a noble Lord breaking down in his speech because his wife or the object of his affections happened to be present in the Peeresses' Gallery. The two grounds upon which he supported the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman were—first, that it would conduce to the comfort of the occupants of the Ladies' Gallery; and, secondly, that it would add to the grace and ornament of the House.
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he would remind the House that seven years ago, when the hon. Member for Kerry(Mr. Herbert) first brought the matter before the House of Commons, he did not venture to divide the House upon it after Mr. Layard, who was then First Commissioner of Works, had read a letter from a lady who was a frequent visitor to the Gallery, which proved that the ladies preferred that things should remain as they were. Nothing had since occurred from which it could be inferred that things were now different except so far as the long silence observed by the innovators demonstrated how conscious they were of the weakness of their cause. Their own tactics showed that the subject was not one that had grown very rapidly either in public opinion or in that of the ladies themselves. The matter had been dragging on since 1869 down to the present time without hon. Members being able to get up any steam in favour of their suggestion, and he thought the hon. and learned Serjeant would not now have brought it forward unless impelled to do so by that instinctive gallantry under which the wisest of men were not proof against occult influence such as might radiate from behind the grating. The hon. and learned Gentleman had gone deeply into the archæological part of the question, but he might have reminded him, when he told them of ladies 100 years ago crowding the floor of the House, that many deviations from what was now considered, Parliamentary rules were winked at 100 years ago could not now be treated lightly, and that many irregularities that were permitted then would not be tolerated in the present day. Would his hon. and learned Friend like Election 586 Petitions now to be tried by Committees of the Whole House, and Committees which had dined as Members used there to dine? Reference had been made to the usage of the House of Lords in the matter; but the Peers had several other practices which did not prevail in the lower House. They had cross benches for Peers who were not sure of their politics to sit upon, and they allowed their messengers to carry messages to Peers all through the House; but in this House Members sacrificed their convenience to their dignity, and did not admit any messenger within the Bar. All those things might be discussed with advantage before the House troubled itself with the grating grievance. It was not unimportant in viewing this question to take into consideration the hours during which the House sat. The Lords, as a rule, sat for a very short time each evening, so that the ladies could come down in morning dress. The House of Commons, on the other hand, met at 4 o'clock and sat until past midnight, so that if the screen were to be taken away, it would necessitate the ladies who chose the latter part of the sitting coming down in evening costume. If the grating were removed, this question of morning or evening dress would become a prominent one, much to the detriment of that sensible portion of their lady visitors who come to listen and not to be looked at. True it was that Members of Parliament had emancipated themselves from the old-fashioned ceremonial of dress. In the last century the Prime Minister used to come down in his Star and Garter, and evening dress was the rule of the House, while he might remind the hon. and learned Serjeant that a countryman of his, a distinguished Member of the Irish House of Commons, was known as "Tottenham in his boots," because on one occasion, there being a very close Division, that Gentleman had committed the enormity of walking into the House in his boots. Had the hon. and learned Gentlemen who had spoken in favour of the proposal produced any letters on the subject from ladies pleading for the removal of the grating, he should have thought that the agitators had gone some way towards making out their case, but they had done nothing of the kind. His own experience was, that the ladies did not 587 desire the grating to be removed, and before he could give his assent to the suggestion there must be a much stronger and sterner demand for the change on the part of those whom it chiefly concerned. If the proposal were adopted it would only destroy an institution which was very pleasant and had worked out its own conventional law.
§ MR. LOCKEsaid, the subject was discussed in 1869, when only one lady gave her opinion upon the subject, and it was to the effect that no alteration should be made in the gallery. He presumed that the lady represented the general body of opinion, among those who frequented the gallery, and he was therefore opposed to the removal of the lattice.
MR. OSBORNE MORGANcould not say much for the gallantry of the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Forsyth) or the hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) The former spoke of the ladies as beautiful animals, while the latter referred to them as things to be winked at.
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPEexplained that he did not say that the ladies were things to be winked at, but that irregularities might a long time ago have been winked at or overlooked which would not be tolerated now.
MR. OSBORNE MORGANthought the House ought to get rid of this piece of prudery. If those who were in favour of the grating desired it for the protection of the ladies they paid but a poor compliment to the House; while if, on the contrary, they thought it necessary for the protection of the House, that was but a poor compliment to the ladies. It was very rarely indeed, even in postprandial hours, that anything was said in that House which would raise a blush upon the most susceptible cheek, and if the argument to which he was referring were pushed to its logical conclusion, it would involve the exclusion of ladies altogether. If there were any danger of unseemly discussion or altercation, the presence of ladies would act as a check upon it, just as in the days of contested elections when ladies were placed in front they reduced the crowds to comparative quiet. Then was the grating necessary for the protection of the House itself? He saw the other day in a newspaper that the Members 588 of that House averaged the sober age of 55 years. Surely at that age they ought not to be liable to such susceptibilities. The House of Commons was the only Assembly in the world in which it was found necessary to shut up the ladies in the way they did. In Italy the most prominent place in the Chamber of Deputies was given to the ladies, and in the House of Lords they also occupied a very prominent place. It was to Mahomedan countries that they must go for a precedent for the Gallery of the House of Commons. He protested against placing the ladies in a cage where, except in the front seat, they could neither see, hear, nor breathe.
§ MR. GREENEsaid, the country would think the House of Commons had very little to do when it wasted time debating a question of this kind. He was almost ashamed of being a Member of the House which occupied its time in discussing this matter.
§ SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, the ventilation of the Ladies' Gallery was exceedingly bad owing to the obstruction caused by the grating. He would suggest that the grating should be entirely removed, and that in its place there should be a loge grille with light shutters extending half way up the opening, so that in any case ventilation would not be impeded, and the ladies might have them either open or shut at pleasure.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that when the subject was brought before the House in 1869 by the hon. Member for Kerry, the principle was then put forward that the accommodation in the Ladies' Gallery was grossly inadequate for the purpose for which it was intended. Upon that occasion the accuracy of that statement was admitted, but since that time considerable changes had been made in the gallery, and it was now a very different place from what it had been then. At that time it was considered that the question was not one for hon. Members of this House to decide. It was for the consideration of the ladies themselves, and he recollected that on the occasion referred to, so strong were the statements made by those hon. Members acquainted with the circumstances of the case, that his hon. Friend who had placed the Motion before the House, declined to go a division, the fact 589 being, that bad as the accommodation was, ladies who were consulted upon the point, declined to assent to any change which would enable them to be seen by the whole House. That view, he believed, still prevailed among those ladies who visited the gallery. He believed that if they were consulted not 10 out of 100 would consent to a change being made. In fact, they did not want the gallery made like a box at a theatre. The House ought to consider that the gallery was made for the accommodation of the ladies, and therefore their wishes should be consulted on the subject of its arrangements; and if that consideration prevailed, they would not remove the grating.
§ SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, that having visited the Gallery just now, he found it was very difficult to hear and absolutely impossible to see from the back seats, and he would suggest that the three rows of seats should be raised so that their occupants could see into the House; and if the ventilation were made to go through the cornice, the gallery would be by no means an uncomfortable place. As regarded the dimensions of the seats, he found that in 1858 the present Vice Chancellor Malins said—"He hoped that before hon. Gentlemen expressed any opinion upon the subject they would walk up to the Ladies' Gallery and judge for themselves." That was at the crinoline epoch. When the First Commissioner of Works had recovered from his illness, he (Sir William Fraser) hoped he would take that advice, and that the suggestions which he had now made might be of some practical use.
§ MR. CALLANthought it strange that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Greene), who was so strongly in favour of the removal of convent gratings, should be opposed to the removal of the gratings from the Ladies' Gallery. He was strongly of opinion that if the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend had been confined to the rendering of the Ladies' Gallery more convenient and more commodious it would be unanimously supported by the House. He would therefore suggest that the hon. and learned Member should withdraw his Motion in favour of that suggested by the hon. Baronet the Member for Kidderminster.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he was quite sure the House would 590 join him in expressing regret that his noble Friend the First Commissioner of Works was not present to hear and to take the part which now devolved upon him (Lord John Manners). For his own part, not being aware that the question was coming on that evening, he had not made himself acquainted with the details of the subject; but he was aware that some time ago the First Commissioner had had his attention directed to the subject. He would have the opportunity of reading the various views which had been expressed upon it, and probably next Session, if the hon. and learned Gentleman thought fit to renew his Motion, his noble Friend would be in his place to give him a more fitting answer than he (Lord John Manners) could on the present occasion. The hon. and learned Gentleman had given various reasons for the opinion he expressed that if the grating were removed the appearance of ladies need not be a cause of fear or apprehension, so far as their oratorical efforts were concerned, to any hon. Member, be he young, middle-aged, or old. He quite agreed with the hon. and learned Member, but he would ask him this question, which he commended to his serious consideration. Did it follow that the ladies would not be frightened by Members of the House of Commons? After all that had been said upon both sides, the practical consideration really was—would the removal of the grating exercise any prejudicial effect upon the attendance of those ladies who were now in the habit of going there? He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would not say that by maintaining the grating in its present state, any single lady had been, or would be, debarred from attending. On the other hand, could it be said that if the grating were removed, no lady would be prevented from attending? He could not take upon himself to say that such would not be the result. At the outside, all the hon. and learned Gentlemen could say was that there were some ladies who wished for a change. Under these circumstances, and quite agreeing that this was a question for the comfort and convience of the ladies themselves, and that the views and wishes of hon. Members ought to be put in the background, he could not, so far as he could form an opinion, see his way to the removal of the grating.
§ Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.