HC Deb 10 April 1883 vol 277 cc1973-84
SIR HUSSEY VIVIAN,

in rising to move— That if it shall appear, on Notice being taken, during any Debate, that forty Members are not present, the question under discussion shall be treated as a dropped order, and the House will proceed to the consideration of the next Order of the Day or Motion on the Paper, said, that, as far as he knew, the subject that he was bringing forward had never been discussed by the House. It had not been considered by the two Committees which had sat on the Rules and Standing Orders of the House, nor during the debates on Procedure in the Autumn Session. The fact was, that the question was one which did not affect the Business of the House generally, but only the interests of private Members. He had gone into the statistics of Counts out during the present Parliament. On Mondays and Thursdays there had been no Counts, except late at night or rather early in the morning, so that they did not come within the question. On Tuesdays, at comparatively early hours, there were five Counts in 1880, seven in 1881, and seven in 1882. On Wednesdays there had been no Counts, on Fridays, before 11 p.m.; there had been three Counts in 1880, one in 1881, and two in 1882. However important his Notice might be, a Member had to run the risk of being unfortunate in the ballot, and possibly of being never able to bring his Motion on at any time during the Session. The average number of Members who balloted on Tuesday was something like 40, and not more than five or six Motions, at the most, generally stood on the Paper on that day. It constantly happened that Members who had Motions of the utmost importance to bring forward, were unable to do so because they were unfortunate in the ballot. In his opinion, the ballot was not a scientific mode of conducting the Business of a great Assembly like that. It was a mere chance and haphazard mode of determining what Business should be taken. However important a Motion might be, and however much the House might desire to discuss it, the House had no choice but either to efface itself or to allow Motions of the most frivolous character to be put forward. He thought that was not a position in which a great deliberative Assembly, charged with the affairs of this vast Empire, ought to be placed. How, then, could the House be placed in such a position that it might choose between a good and a bad Motion? He knew of no mode so simple and so easy as that which he ventured to suggest to the House. It would be impossible to appoint a Committee to select particular Motions. That would be a most invidious office to undertake. He believed that no Committee would be willing to undertake it, and even if it did the House would not be satisfied with the decisions of such a Committee. But by the proposition which he ventured to make the whole House would decide the matter. If an hon. Member could not get 39 Members to support his Motion, it might be assumed, as a matter of course, that it could not be of very great importance. The position which, this would place the House in was very much that of voting the Previous Question. The House would, in point of fact, decline to devote a certain portion of its time to the discussion of the particular question which was submitted to it, and it would do this in such a way as to enable it to arrive at the Motion which it desired to discuss. On the other hand, no injustice would be done, because any Member who could persuade 39 other Members to constitute a House for him, would be able to go on with the discussion of his Motion. It could hardly be expected that the Government could afford to give days to private Members' Motions. At present, private Members had two days in the week, and the best portion of another day, while the Government had two days, and the contingent reversion of another day. How could it be supposed, then, that the Government, with the enormous amount of work they had to do, could afford to give days for the discussion of private Members' Motions, however important they might be? "Counts" on Friday were very few in number. This arose from the contingent reversion possessed by the Government. The result was that Friday's Paper was very largely devoted to. Motions. There were constantly over 20 Motions on the Paper on Friday, chiefly, he believed, because hon. Members knew that on that day the House would be kept for them. If his Motion were carried, he had no doubt that Motions of an important character standing on the Paper on Friday would be discussed, and he also had no doubt that many Motions of a frivolous and an irrelevant character would not be discussed. He hoped it would not be considered in any way incumbent on the Government to keep a House, so that any particular Motion on the Paper should be discussed on Friday. He observed that an Amendment was to be moved by the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna), but he could not see its reasonableness. If 40 Members could not be found to take sufficient interest in a Motion, that Motion ought to be dropped, and that Members should be compelled to listen to it because they wished to support a subsequent Motion was absurd. He had heard it said that if this Motion was carried there would be canvassing to keep Members away from one Motion so as to support another. But there was a great deal of that now, and he did not see any great harm in it. No doubt they all enjoyed holidays, and there was a feeling that if this Motion were adopted the number of holidays would be seriously curtailed. He would point out that there were only about seven or eight Counts in a Session; that they generally took place between 8 and 9 o'clock, and that, therefore, all that the House would sacrifice would be 25 hours. But if after long debates and late sittings a holiday was wanted, the adjournment of the House should be moved, and then there would be a simple remedy applied. This was not a Party question, nor did it in any way re-open the subject of the Procedure Rules, which had been so thoroughly thrashed out. It was essen- tially a private Member's question, and amounted to this, whether they would place themselves in the position of discussing such Motions as ought to be discussed. All he wished to do was to give the House control over the topics which it would and would not discuss, and to remove the feeling of people outside that while Business was so blocked as at present the House constantly effaced itself and sacrificed whole nights. He begged to move the Resolution standing in his name.

MR. DILLWYN

seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That if it shall appear, on notice being taken, during any Debate, that forty Members are not present, the question under discussion shall he treated as a dropped order, and the House will proceed to the consideration of the next Order of the Day or Motion on the Paper."—(Sir Hussey Vivian.)

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA,

in rising to move, as an Amendment— That it is inexpedient to institute any rule or practice whereby discussion of Motions in order, and before the House can he evaded by the withdrawal from the House of Members favourable to some Motion later in the Orders of the same day, said, when he contemplated the extent and effect of the proposed innovation, he looked on the Resolution of the hon. Baronet as the most audacious proposal ever submitted by a private Member. It threw aside all Parliamentary precedents, and ignored altogether the Parliamentary history of the greatest measures which had been carried in that House. The hon. Baronet came forward with a plan, cut and dried, for the purpose of extinguishing every right of individual Members to propose any measure to the House, unless there were 40 of them to initiate the discussion and protect its continuance. The effect of such a rule, if it had existed before, would have been to prevent the discussion of many of the most important questions on which Parliament had subsequently legislated. How could Villiers and Cobden have brought forward and discussed their Free Trade Motions, if the system proposd by the hon. Baronet had been in force? The Motion stated that after a question was treated as a dropped Order "the House would proceed" to the next Business. What House? The House in ambuscade in the Lobby? That was the new Liberalism. If this were possible to be done the Government could arrange a Count out for any Motion that was unpalatable to them. A Count out even now was easy enough. The reason that it was not more often done now was that he believed the Prime Minister was averse to it; but he would not trust Ministers generally. There were some who would be glad to shunt a train of ideas when it would cost them nothing. After all, what was the extent of the inconvenience actually inflicted on the House by the present system? Eight nights or thereabouts were lost in each Session. Last year the House sat 200 days and nights, and eight more would have been added in effect to their number if the proposal of the hon. Baronet had been adopted. Surely this was no reason why the Procedure of the House should in future be revolutionized on two days in every week, and the management of its Business on those days virtually placed in the hands of the Government? He thought the bear statement of the ease was sufficient to insure the rejection of the Motion, and he therefore begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is inexpedient to institute any rule or practice whereby discussion of Motions in order, and before the House can be evaded by the withdrawal from the House of Members favourable to some Motion later in the Orders of the same day,"—(Sir Joseph M'Kenna,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. ANDERSON

said, he approved of the Motion as a whole, regarding it as a scandal that with such an enormous accumulation of Business the House should waste night after night by "Counts out." He had great sympathy for the officials of the House; but he thought their case might be met in the way which had been pointed out. At the same time, if 40 Members could not be got together to support a Motion, it would be better that the Motion should be set aside; but it was a pity that the whole night should be lost. The Motion before the House might give rise to a certain amount of Lobbying, and can- vassing outside the House to get rid of a particular subject. He would also point out that as on Fridays the Business of the House consisted of the discussion of Motions brought forward as Amendments to the Motion for Supply, the scheme of the hon. Baronet would result, not in the discussion of successive Amendments, but in Supply itself becoming a dropped Order. His hon. Friend's scheme, therefore, needed alteration in this particular; but it had its merits, and he should support it as a protest against the deliberate waste of the time of the House by continual "Counts."

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, that his hon. Friend's elaborate natural history of Counts out reminded him more than anything else of one of Professor Owen's masterly diagnoses of some unknown animal just called into existence by the discovery of a jaw-bone or a toe-nail. Only twice this Session had the House been counted out, and yet the hon. Member now got up, and, like Niobe, all tears, complained how often some Notice utterly frivolous and ridiculous stood in the way of something important. His hon. Friend was extremely ungrateful to Fortune for his double success at the ballot-box, and, in complaining of the harder fate of those whose Resolutions had been counted out, ought not to forget what the fickle goddess had done for himself. The objections to the proposal were very obvious; indeed, his hon. Friend had been good enough at once to dispose of all that could be said in its favour by his admission of the infrequency of the evil which he wished to remedy. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) made no such admission, but in the sorrow of his soul spoke in his most impressive manner of the mass of Business left undone in consequence of Counts out. Now, what the country understood by Business was Government Business, which ran no risk such as the hon. Member seemed to fear, and to ascribe an equal importance to the Resolutions of private Members displayed a certain confusion of thought which it was most desirable to avoid. It was not the fact that Tuesdays and Fridays were as valuable as Government nights, or, at any rate, they would not be so till the adoption of the proposal before the House. In that case it would inevitably happen that the Government would control all the days of the week except Wednesday. Motion after Motion would be dismissed, and at last the Government Orders of the day would be reached, and a House would be kept for them. He appealed to the House not to be beguiled by the syren voice of the hon. Member for Glamorgan, for the whole Friday night would go into the omnivorous maw of the Treasury Bench. The supporters of the proposal could scarcely imagine that it would merely dispose of a dull or an objectionable subject, and that hon. Members whose favourite topic was counted out would be so completely above all human prejudice as to be willing to return good for evil by making a House for the next Resolution on the list. The hon. Member for Glasgow might Count out the hon. Member for Glamorgan; but his triumph would be short, for the hon. Member for Glamorgan would come back in some 25 minutes and cut short the opening of the hon. Member's case. The effect of this Motion would be to reduce the Business of the House to a kind of intellectual leap-frog. Let them pass this Resolution, and instead of six or seven Motions, as now, as the Tuesday's or Friday's bill of fare, they would have 20 or 30 on the Notice Paper, and the Lobbying and manœuvring, the whispering and running in and running out that would follow, would make a much greater scandal than any that could be said to exist at present. He trusted the House would dispose of this Motion in the most summary way; and he would end by a quotation, which none who heard it had forgotten, of their late Friend Mr. Bernal Osborne, who appealed to their charitable feelings on behalf of those good men who— Do good by stealth and blush to find it fame.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

said, he was surprised that the hon. Member should have brought forward this Motion, which was only the clôture in another form, without any responsibility on the part of the persons who put it in force. The Motion as it stood did not apply only to Tuesdays and Fridays; it applied to every day, even to Wednesday. So that if a Bill was brought forward on a Wednesday, and 40 Members did not happen to be present, it was to be dropped. He presumed that the next Order was to be treated in the same way, and so one. A number of Members from the Principality or from the Sister Isle might combine and prevent a man from having his fair opportunity. It was for the benefit of the constituencies that some measures should be brought forward which, in their infancy, perhaps, did not interest a large number of Members. But it would be no satisfaction to the constituencies to find that a Motion which might be of the greatest importance to them could not be submitted to the House because their Members would not condescend to canvass in the Lobby. This Motion was one which would be most dangerous to the constitution of the House, and he trusted it would be rejected by such a majority as would prevent its being brought forward again.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he ventured to appeal to the Prime Minister whether, considering that the House had last year spent a vast amount of time in discussing the New Rules, it was advisable to make a fresh Rule before the other Rules had been fairly tried. He hoped the Prime Minister would not give his support to the Motion of the hon. Baronet. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) should like to ask the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Sir Hussey Vivian) whether he had ever been present to prevent a Count out? That was a question which he bogged very seriously to put to him, because, if his memory served him right, he had never seen the hon. Baronet in his place when the House was counted out. One remark had been made which he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was very glad to hear. The hon. Baronet stated that whenever the House of Commons felt interested in any question, it would always prevent that question from being counted out; and he further stated that whenever there was a "Count out," they might be quite sure that the House took no interest in the question under discussion. Well, the other night the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had a Motion of the Paper which he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) very properly thought was counted out. He had no doubt the hon. Member for Salford felt that the question was a very important one. Perhaps it was, but it was not brought on at the right time. At all events, the House allowed it to be counted out. The hon. Member for Glamorganshire must therefore think the Motion of the hon. Member for Salford came under the class of Motions which did not deserve the consideration of the House. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) rather agreed with him on that point. It was a question which, in his opinion, might be postponed for a considerable time. Then there was another question raised with regard to this proposed new Rule by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), who showed that if the House was counted out on Supply no further Business could be gone on with, because all the Business that succeeded Supply would be stopped. But the House must remember that according to the present Motion, if a question in which the Government took no interest were counted out at 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, Supply could then be taken by the Government procuring 40 Members. He ventured to hope the Government would not consent to accept the Motion now before the House.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, that he only wished to make one observation about the Motion. It was quite true that "Counts out" occasionally took place. It was also true that they were sometimes a source of annoyance and inconvenience, especially to the hon. Members whose speeches were closed by them. But it was altogether incorrect to say that the "Counts out" seriously impeded Public Business. He took some trouble during the Procedure debates last Session to inquire into the subject, and he ascertained that last year there had only been four "Counts out" which could by any possible stretch of imagination be said to have delayed the Government's Business. And on two occasions there were extenuating circumstances. "Counts out" might be inconvenient to the private Members whose Bills or Resolutions suffered thereby; but they were often a great relief to the overworked officers of the House. They usually occurred the day after there had been a prolonged Sitting. He never promoted a "Count out," and certainly never moved one; but he was very far from thinking that "Counts out" were not occasionally a very great relief to the Government, the House, and the officials. It was undesirable that the public, who did not know the Forms of Parliament, should labour under the delusion that the alleged congestion of Business was in any way caused by such occurrences. As for the Motion itself, he disapproved of it. The object of the hon. Member for Glamorgan was a good one; but certainly the means by which he proposed to get at that object would not be workable. Instead of counting out the House, he wanted to count out a debate. Whatever might be said to the contrary, if the Resolution became a Rule of the House, it would end to the disadvantage of private Members. Whenever they chose, it would be in the power of a Government to count out private Members' Motions one after another until such time as their own Business was reached. It was no use saying the Government would not do this—all Governments did strange things when Party ends were to be served; and the instrument that the hon. Member for Glamorganshire proposed to put into the hands of the Ministry would certainly be utilized to the detriment of private Members. The rights of independent Members had been greatly curtailed of recent years; but this Resolution, if carried in its present form, would absolutely annihilate them.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that his hon. Friend who had brought forward the Motion was well qualified by his experience and talents to call attention to a subject which must be debated from time to time. Undoubtedly, the question of "Counts out" was one which offered much scope for remark. It was a system against which much might be said; but he agreed with those who thought that, upon the whole, it did not bring about much substantial unfairness. It afforded a good deal of relief to persons who felt themselves under heavy pressure, and he thought it executed a good deal of rough and summary justice upon Motions of a class sometimes not well entitled to the attention of the House. But, as his hon. Friend had said very fairly, it was a private Member's question. It was eminently, but not exclusively so, though he had some doubt as to what the operation of the Motion might be upon Government nights of Business. But they had had a considerable number of declarations upon the question from the hon. Members on both sides of the House, and he was afraid his hon. Friend would have very little difficulty in collecting the general purport and tendency of those declara- tions, and would be obliged to admit that the tribunal to which he had appealed had decided against him. He was unwilling to interpose at an early period, on the ground that it did not appear to him that the question was one in which the Government ought to take any prominent part, or suggest that it had a great interest in it one way or the other. Nor did he consider it was a question as between private Members and the Government. What he did consider was that, while ostensibly, and in the mind of his hon. Friend, it was a question upon the system of counting out, it was really one involving a much larger and more important question—namely, whether the order of Business in the House ought to be determined—so far as it was not a Government night—by the free choice of independent Members taking their chance at the ballot, or whether the House should take into its own hands the arrangement of its Business with a view to giving the first chance of discussion to a Motion, or Motions, which it might deem best entitled to the first place? That was a question of vast importance. It was hardly possible to exaggerate the importance of it, because of the change which it might bring about in the relative positions of the independent judgment of individual Members and the general judgment of the House. That question was vitally affected by the present Motion. It was not at all a question of regulating the method of counting out. His hon. Friend himself had spoken of the vast importance of giving to the House a control over its own Business. He was very far from saying that that question might not at some time or other, possibly even at the present moment, be a subject deserving of consideration; it was clearly one upon which there was much to be said on both sides; but if it was to be entertained it ought to be entertained directly, and any measure upon the subject ought to be put in motion by means perfectly direct, simple, and unexceptionable. He could not agree that the system his hon. Friend desired the House to adopt was a simple one. Although it was capable of description in few and simple words on the Notice Paper, it would lead to the utmost complexity in carrying on the Business of the House. He thought, considering the principle which was in- volved in such a proposition, it was plain that it deserved very deliberate and distinct discussion, and that it was not a subject fit to be raised incidentally on a question about the method of working the system of counting out. And, finally, he agreed with the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) that Parliament had spent a great deal of time last year in settling a number of questions of great importance in regard to the Procedure of the House. In point of fact, they might compare the mass of Business with which the House then dealt to the passing of some great legislative measure, for Procedure was absolutely essential to legislation, and lay at the root of it. Now, it was quite true that the Motion did not re-open directly any points which they then decided; but he agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that after they had adopted a scheme such as that, which cost them so much time and effort in the course of last year, it was desirable that they should give it some time to work, and to prove what it was worth, and that they should not revert from week to week to the consideration of isolated points of a subject which was eminently deserving' of consideration as a whole. He would certainly advise his hon. Friend not to press upon the House a Motion which, he believed, it was disinclined to receive, for he did not think the Government would, under the circumstances of the case, undertake to adopt a system, which involved so much more than it seemed to involve, and which would decide a very difficult question in a manner that would not be satisfactory to those who desired that the proceedings of the House should be straightforward, direct, and carried on in the public view.

SIR HUSSEY VIVIAN

said, that, after the reception given to his Motion, he would not put the House to the trouble of a division.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.