DIVISIONS IN THE, HOUSE. (Hansard, 18 July 1834)

§ Lord Ebrington
said, that in submitting to the House the Motion of which he had given notice last night, with reference to the Resolution of the House in respect to the method of taking divisions, it would not 132 be necessary to go into any detail as to the plan, which owed its origin, he believed, to the hon. member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton), inasmuch as he understood his Motion was not to be opposed. The plan had been tried last night, and its failure was sufficient to induce him to bring forward the Motion to rescind the Resolution of the House, which had authorized the adoption of the plan; and he should be ready at a fitting opportunity, to defend himself against the obloquy which might be thrown upon him, and those hon. Gentlemen who thought with him on this subject, by the imputation, that in pursuing this course, they wished to conceal their votes from their constituents and the country. The noble Lord concluded by moving, that the Resolution of the Mouse, relative to the divisions of the House, be rescinded during the present Session.

§ Mr. Warburton
seconded the Motion, though he was prepared to contend, that the plan had not been fairly tried last night. Indeed, during the experiment, he felt himself in much the same situation as an enraged musician, who, having produced a piece of music of a character that ought to be performed by a first-rate performer, found it intrusted to the meagre skill of the merest scraper of catgut in the world. The success of the plan depended, first on the velocity exercised on calling out the names; and secondly, on the velocity with which the names so called out were taken down, and certainly last night there had been no expedition used in either of these essentials to the proposed plan. Whether the default in calling the names arose from a want of readiness on the part of his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, or whether the latter defect arose from a willing readiness on the part of the accomplices of the plan, he would leave the House to determine; but certainly the plan had succeeded on a fresh experiment this morning, on the occasion of the division of a House constituted of at least 100 Members. He did not mean to call his hon. friend near him (Mr. Hume) a bad performer; on the contrary, he thought him a perfect Paganini; and if he had been seconded by the writer who was employed, who had not those flying fingers which the occasion demanded, all would have gone well. From what had been shown by the second rehearsal of that morning, he did not anticipate 133 that the question would be set at rest by this decision, but he thought that it would be, under all the circumstances, most advisable to discontinue the present mode of taking the divisions for the remainder of the present Session.

§ Mr. Ward
would, of course, bow assent to the expression of the wish of the House, but he pledged himself most distinctly to bring forward the question again, or some measure like it, at an early period of the next Session.

§ Mr. Hume
was rather disappointed, when he thought that the term catgut-scraper was applied to him by his hon. friend, although he laid no claim to the title of a perfect Paganini. However, let a man be as eminent a performer as he might be, it was still necessary for him to have a rehearsal. He thought that, under the circumstances, he could not be considered as having had a fair trial. The right hon. member for Tamworth had no great reason to exult in the success of the noble Lord's Motion, although he was against the principle of the measure brought forward by the hon. member for St. Alban's, as his satisfaction could only last for a short time. The temporary failure of the plan had been attributed to him (Mr. Hume), because he had undertaken to assist in carrying it into effect; but this was a groundless charge. If the plan which he himself had submitted to the Committee had been adopted—and it was not adopted only because they wanted the means to give it effect, namely, by adding another entrance to the House corresponding to the Lobby—he felt sure that it would have succeeded. He would put it to the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he would not think it advisable to erect another room on the east side of the House, that the plan might have a fair trial? Hon. Members might laugh at the word trial, but he would say, the realization of his plan. He did not, indeed, see why his Majesty's Ministers should not build a new House at once. Members were condemned to inhale, for eight, ten, and sometimes fourteen hours a-day, the pestilential air of that House, and he wondered the noble Lord was not more careful of his own health. Years were telling upon the noble Lord as well as on himself, and neither the noble Lord, nor he, were so able to bear night-work as they were some years back. The House might laugh, but it was 134 quite true notwithstanding. He did wish to have a proper place in which to conduct the affairs of this country, and he thought for such an object 25,000l. or 30,000l. was of no importance. He had been pressed to bring forward a motion with this end, but he had declined taking any such step unless his Majesty's Ministers would sanction the vote. He was quite sure that the noble Lord wished the business of the country to be done efficiently, and not shuffled through in the manner it was at present, particularly with a crowded attendance of Members, when the House was full up to the Table, and three-fourths of the Members were utterly unable to know what was going on. He only wished that they possessed as good a building for the purposes of public business as any of the companies of London. He took up this question solely on public grounds, though he did not mean to deny that his own convenience would be consulted also.

§ Sir Robert Peel
was surprised to find himself in so large a majority. It was a very short time ago that he could only prevail on about thirty Gentlemen to vote with him against the trial being made this Session—he recommended them to wait till next Session; but he was denounced as an enemy to all improvement, and a trial was resolved on, with what result he need not say. He did not object to the votes of Members being made known to their constituents, but he thought that on particular questions a Member might, with a particular view, vote in a manner quite at variance with his general and professed principles; and, on a former occasion, he had instanced the example of a gentleman who, on an emergency, voted in favour of the Assessed-taxes, because the question involved the existence of an Administration which the hon. Member preferred to another. He did also object to the principle of the question; and he argued against it, for one ground, on the score of probable multiplication of divisions. If the principle was good for a minority of ten as compared to thirty, it was good for a minority of ten as compared with 300; and when ten or twelve patriots felt strongly on any subject, if their names were sure to he known, there would be no more of that amicable compromise by which, with the aid of the Speaker, a minority frequently gave way without putting the House to the trouble 135 of dividing. He did not know why the hon. member for Middlesex had alluded to him, as he had exhibited no tokens of peculiar exultation at the result; but he could not help remarking, that the measure might be tried with a much better chance of success in the next Session.

§ Lord Althorp
was quite sure, from the result of the trial which was had last night, that, even if the plan proposed by the hon. member for Middlesex had been adopted, no better success would have attended it than that which had failed. It was alleged, that the circumstances of the trial were unfavourable to it; but he thought that, considering that the largest majority counted and enrolled according to the new plan last night was only 105, instead of 300 or 400, great facilities had been afforded it. As to building a new Lobby or a new House, he had no reason to believe that any large proportion of the Members wished either to be done; but, if at any time a great majority of the House should concur in thinking that a new building should be erected for their accommodation, his Majesty's Government would certainly do everything in their power to meet their wishes. However, he did not see that the plan of the hon. Member would be followed by any useful result. Whether the majority went out on one side of the House or on the other, they would take the same time in going out, and nothing would be gained in that respect.

Colonel Evans
hoped, that the principle would not be lost sight of, but that the noble Lord opposite would give it his attention at the beginning of next Session. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) appeared to have been rather inconsistent in his argument. That right hon. Gentleman admitted, that Members ought to be responsible for their votes to their constituents; yet he objected to their names being taken down, by which alone their constituents could be made acquainted with the votes of their Representatives. The right hon. Gentleman argued that, inasmuch as the ten patriots voting "aye" or "no" had already the means of making their votes known, that was sufficient; but he would ask, why the twenty or thirty non-patriots were to escape their share of responsibility—why their names were not to be taken down also? He thought, that the building of an additional Lobby would occasion a 136 considerable saving of time. At present, when the "Ayes" or the "Noes" had been into the Lobby, on their return to the House the passages were choked, and it was a long time before they could resume their seats, or the business of the evening. An additional Lobby would remove this cause of delay. But, after all, the great question, as he conceived it, was, whether the Members of that House ought, or ought not, to be responsible to their constituents for their votes. He recollected being at an election five or six years ago, when one of the candidates, who had been in Parliament before, recommended himself on the ground of his being a patriot. It was doubted whether he properly described himself. It was suspected that he had voted in favour of the Six Acts, which, at the time they were passed, were held to be almost as great an encroachment on the liberty of the subject as was the Coercion Bill. Though they were convinced that the individual in question had so voted, for want of some authentic documents to which they could refer, they were prevented from stating the fact on the hustings, because it might have been contradicted. It seemed that the plan tried last night had been objected to, because it occasioned a loss of some half-minute; but, he would ask, bow many half-minutes, half, hours, half-days, or even half-weeks, did they not lose in matters which, comparatively, were not of half so much importance? He trusted, that the noble Lord, if his Motion were now carried, would not oppose the principle that was involved in the question, should it be brought forward again next Session.

§ Lord Ebrington,
in reply, observed, that if, with so clever a performer as had tried his hand last night—one who was acknowledged a perfect Paganini—the scheme had proved a total failure, he could not anticipate any success for any future experiment. His own opinion was, that, on any great question, the votes of the Members ought to be known; and the way in which they were published at present was, he thought, sufficient. However, to waive that question, however great might be the duty of maintaining the responsibility of Ministers, the House had another great duty to perform—not to throw any difficulties in the way of transacting the business of the country during the present Session.