RECORD OF DIVISIONS IN THE HOUSE. (Hansard, 11 February 1834)

§ Mr. Ward
rose to bring on his Motion for giving greater publicity to the Divisions of the House. He had undertaken this subject with the permission of the hon. member for Colchester, who had had the merit of introducing it during the last Session of Parliament; and in doing so, he requested the indulgence of the House, for bringing the question so early under its reconsideration. One reason for doing this was, that he believed justice was not done to the Motion on the former occasion,—he did not mean by the hon. member for Colchester, whose talents he admired, but by the House, whose attention was then occupied by the consideration of many other, and apparently more imme 240 diately important changes. They now stood in a very different situation, and he trusted that the present Motion would meet with the attention which it deserved. In his opinion, its adoption or rejection would have a very material influence on the character and prospects of the House. In calling upon the House to give publicity to its Divisions, he did not call on it to place itself in communication with the Press, but merely this—that there should be daily placed on the Table of the House an accurate record of the votes of every Member for and against every question. On referring to the debate which took place on the Motion of the hon. Member for Colchester, he found that the objections made to the proposition might be reduced to three. First, the impracticability of the plan proposed by the hon. Member: that objection was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the sole reason of his opposition. The second was, the inexpediency of enforcing any responsibility at all, which was made by the noble Lord, the member for Norwich (Lord Stormont). The third was, that there was already a sufficient degree of practical publicity and responsibility, which was the argument of the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth. The Noble Lord on the Treasury Bench did not object to the publication of the divisions generally, but objected merely to the specific plan proposed by the hon. Member as impracticable. This objection could not apply to the present Motion, because he meant to propose no specific plan. He would not draw off the attention of the House from the great principle on which his Motion was founded by the consideration of minor particulars. At the same time, he thought it right to say, that he would not have occupied their time by the consideration of a Motion of which he did not firmly believe that he could suggest a plan which could be reduced to practice. He had a plan by which he did not doubt that an accurate list of every Gentleman's votes might be taken without the loss of five minutes time. Some hon. Gentlemen appeared to doubt the possibility of this. He was perfectly willing to suggest the method. The reason why he mentioned this was, because he had been told, that to bring forward this Motion without stating any plan, would be as bad as to bring forward and state an impracticable one. He would, 241 therefore, if the House wished it, relate his plan [Loud cries of "No, no!"]. As it rather appeared to be the feeling of the House that he should not enter into detail, he would refrain from doing so. The principle on which he based his Motion, was the incontestible, unalienable rights of those who sent them there to receive from them an authentic account of their transactions, and to know, on the authority of their own minutes, the way in which they discharged the duties which they had undertaken. On the last occasion this principle was impugned by the noble Lord, the member for Norwich, whom he was sorry not to see in his place. The noble Lord said, that every member of that House ought to represent his own opinions. That no man appointed to that House ought to be influenced in his votes by the actions of others. That no member of the House ought to be pulled up the next morning for giving a certain vote overnight; and that, in short, he ought not to be responsible for his vote. He would thus far agree with the noble Lord, that every member of that House ought to have the most perfect freedom of agency, but he differed from him, toto cælo, as to the question of responsibility. He looked on responsibility as the very essence of Representative Government, and without publicity, responsibility could not exist. It was publicity alone, as Mr. Jefferson justly said, that supplied the check which prevented society from being divided into two extreme classes, the wolves and the sheep. Fortunately for us the wolves were at present at a discount, and the sheep were too wise to part with their fleece, unless something like good cause were first shown. The right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, said, that we already had responsibility, or publicity (for the two words were synonymous) enough. That, on every occasion of interest to the constituents, the votes of Members were perfectly well known; and, consequently, that there was no necessity for departing from the established practice. To a certain extent this argument might be good. There was indeed a sort of half-and-half responsibility. Their respect for public opinion compelled them to take some measures of publicity, which, to a certain extent, compromised the character and dignity of the House. He had, after an important division, seen no less than nineteen letters in a Morning Paper on the same day—some 242 explanatory, some exculpatory, some accounting for absence, but all calling on the editor to correct some inaccuracy—an inaccuracy not only unintentional, but, considering the manner in which the lists were now obtained, altogether unavoidable. Another objection of the right hon. Baronet to further publicity, was, that a very erroneous opinion might be formed of a public man, by founding it only on one particular vote. Those who read the Debates would not be deceived, but would understand them better in consequence of having an accurate list of votes, whilst those who looked only at the list of votes would be prevented from forming many very untrue conclusions. Besides, however well a Member of that House might speak, it was by his votes he must be judged at last. It was to his votes that he must appeal for public confidence; and whilst speeches were forgotten, votes were always accessible. There was one class of Members to whom he would take the liberty of addressing a few observations; he alluded to the old Members—to those who were attached to old forms, who were reluctant to see any change introduced, and who still clung to the strict privacy of divisions. He, however, should be the first to resist any proposition for permitting strangers to be present during a division, since, on questions of deep interest, it might be impossible to restrain some expressions of public feeling calculated, perhaps, in some measure, to influence their decisions. All that he sought was, to remove the anomalies which at present existed, and to correct a point where theory and practice were at variance. He could conceive no reason why a record should not be preserved of so important a portion of their proceedings—in which, indeed, their characters were concerned—when all other parts of their proceedings were recorded and published without scruple. More especially did this argument apply, when it was remembered that strict secrecy was impossible. They were not in the French Chambers, where votes were taken by ballot. Secrecy here was impossible; and, if it were possible, it would be most pernicious. There was only one class of Members whom he would believe to be sincere in their opposition to the publication—he meant the habitual absentees. He could conceive their dislike to their frequent absences being placed on record, but he was sure that those (by far the majority) 243 who were impressed with a due sense of the important duties of their situation, would not, for a moment, entertain so unworthy an objection. To such he would say, grant a Committee; if, on investigation, the scheme should be found impracticable, without incurring too great a loss of time, let the Committee so report, and there would be an end of the question. But if, as he believed, publicity could be obtained at a very trifling sacrifice of time, then he hoped they would not permit such a sacrifice to interfere with so great a good as the publication of an authentic list of their divisions. He should, therefore, move the appointment of a Select Committee, to inquire into the best mode of obtaining correct and authentic lists of the divisions in that House; and that such Committee should be instructed to report thereon without delay.

§ Mr. Hawes
seconded the Motion, which, he observed, was, in some respects, different from that of the hon. member for Colchester. He was most anxious that the lists of the votes should be published, with the authority and sanction of that House; that was almost the only mode in which he could show to his constituents the part which he took in the Debates. If the divisions were published, it was important that they should be published with all the authority which they would carry with them from having the name of the Speaker attached to them. His hon. friend had rightly observed, that it might be found in the Committee, that any plan proposed for that purpose would be impracticable. If that were so, then this question would be set at rest for ever. In opposing this Motion, let no man say that he was not opposing publicity being given to his votes on public questions; for, it must be evi dent to every thinking man, that every Member who opposed this Motion, must dislike the nature of his votes being disclosed to his constituents.

§ Lord Althorp
said, his hon. friend had done him justice in saying, that he had merely opposed the Motion of the hon. member for Colchester on the question of its practicability. He never objected to the publication of divisions; and he certainly thought that, if they were published, the more correctly, the better. He certainly felt great doubt that his hon. friend would be able to produce a plan that was likely to be practicable. His hon. friend had not stated his plan to the House; and 244 he believed, had the question been put, there would have been a very near division whether he should have done so or not. He confessed, that he should have been glad to have heard what it was, for he had a great opinion of the ability of his hon. friend, and he had no doubt it was a very ingenious one. With respect to the Motion itself, he could have no objection to it, and he should be happy if the Resolutions of the Committee should be such as to lead to any practical result. He certainly thought, that every Member must be responsible for the way in which he voted, and as to the argument that a man on a certain occasion might vote differently from his general opinions, in order to support some particular line of policy, he did not consider it a sufficient objection, because such a circumstance could not occur frequently; and when it did, was susceptible of explanation, and would always meet with due allowance and consideration. He did not, however, think the present mode so objectionable as Gentlemen seemed to imagine. He did not believe the lists now published were very inaccurate. He was aware that during the last Session they were so; but the great number of new Members whose faces were not known, very naturally accounted for that circumstance. But whether they were accurate or not, he certainly could have no objection to means being taken to make them as accurate as possible. If, however, it should appear, that this could not be done without incurring a great loss of time, then he should certainly say, that the object to be attained was not worth such a sacrifice. Having made this statement, he should not object to the Motion.

§ Mr. Hume
expressed his great gratification at the way in which the Motion had been met by the noble Lord opposite. The noble Lord had said that the present system furnished correct lists; but he had not taken into consideration the great labour which it threw on certain individuals. His noble friend knew how difficult it was to count both sides of the House. For his own part, he did not like to go on both sides. He would refer only to what had taken place during the present Session. There had been only two divisions published yet. The first of these was so incorrect, that he believed half the Members put down in it on one side were not in the House that evening; and it had required the greatest labour and trouble 245 on the part of five Members to make it correct; but the first evil had been done, for the inaccurate list had gone throughout the country. As to time, he thought the plan that ought to be adopted would save time, whilst it would give the greatest satisfaction to the country. And as to the absentees, he thought it one of the greatest advantages of the system now proposed, that it would expose to the country those who neglected their duty.

§ Mr. Harvey
defended the way in which he dropped his Motion last Session, and said, that unless a man belonged to one of the great parties in that House, he could not, had he even the tongue of an angel, expect his proposition to meet with the attention which its intrinsic merits might deserve.

§ Mr. Warburton
regarded this Motion as most important, and he hoped he should have to congratulate the House on its success. He looked upon it as one of the most important results of the Reform Bill; indeed, he was not sure that it was not the most important, as regarded the good conduct of the Members. He remembered, that when a meeting was held at the chambers of a certain person, a great and important meeting, for the purpose of arranging a plan that was expected to terminate in the defeat of the Tory Ministry—he remembered, that the greatest importance was attached to securing accurate lists of the division, and the individuals who undertook the task of obtaining them, were over and over again charged to spare no pains to make them correct. If this were felt so important to the Reforming Interest on the eve of such a division—if all great parties in private admitted the importance of accuracy in these particulars, how was it that they had so long delayed obtaining that to which the public, as well as themselves, attached the greatest importance. But then it was urged that this great result could not be accomplished. Where was the difficulty? It was most mechanical. Could not clerks go from bench to bench, and take down the names; and if these clerks were not sufficiently numerous, let them pay another; if one were not enough, let them get two, three, or even four. Where was the difficulty?