ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS IN THE HOUSE OF PEERS. (Hansard, 6 August 1851)

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
brought up the following Report of the Select Committee appointed to settle the order in which Members of the House of Commons should accompany the Speaker in all cases where Her Majesty commanded the attendance of that House at the House of Peers:— The Select Committee appointed to settle the order in which Members shall accompany Mr. Speaker on all occasions when Her Majesty shall command the House to attend Her Majesty in the House of Peers have considered the matter to them referred, and have come to the following Resolutions, which they have agreed to Report to the House:—'Resolved, That it is the opinion of this Committee, that, in order to insure regularity in the order of proceeding from this House to the House of Lords, on occasions of opening or proroguing Parliament, every Member desirous of attending Mr. Speaker do communicate his intention in writing to the clerk of the House, in case the House be not sitting, before the hour of five in the afternoon of the day preceding, and, if the House be sitting, between the hour of three in the afternoon and the rising of the House on the day preceding. That, on the House being summoned to attend Her Majesty, the Cabinet Ministers present do immediately follow the Speaker. That, on the day of meeting or prorogation, before any other business be entered upon, the names of the Members so sent to the clerk be put into a glass, and arranged according to the order in which they shall be drawn forth there from. When the House is summoned to attend Her Majesty, the Members now so arranged shall be called over by the clerk, and the Members shall proceed in such order to the House of Lords, in ranks of four. That, after the House has been summoned to attend Her Majesty, no Member of this House do remain in, or cross, or pass through, any of the lobbies or passages leading from the door of this House to the door of the House of Lords, and the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House do keep the said passages clear of Members.'

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
moved, that the Report he printed, and said that tomorrow he should move that the House 1928 agree to the Report of the Committee. It was very desirable, in order to prevent the confusion and scramble that was so frequently witnessed upon such occasions, that some order should be agreed to. The Committee considered this the best mode they could adopt: but hereafter, if they found any inconvenience to result from it, there would be an opportunity of making any alterations that should be thought necessary.

MR. VERNON SMITH
said, that although it was desirable to prevent the scramble which sometimes took place on proceeding from the House of Commons to the House of Lords, it should be borne in mind that what was now recommended was an innovation on former practice. He begged also to observe that, according to the plan now recommended, Members arriving in town on the day preceding the opening or proroguing Parliament, would not have an opportunity of putting down their names for the ballot next day. It was also quite new that Cabinet Ministers should take precedence of all other Members of the House. He had always understood that the words "Cabinet Minister" were a conventional term utterly unknown to the constitution or the House. The distinction of Privy Councillor was known to the constitution, but not that of Cabinet Minister. If his recollection served him right, when he attended the coronation of William IV. he walked side by side with Lord Althorp, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and leader of the House of Commons. They took their places there merely as representatives of the people, and without any other official distinction whatever.

MR. M. J. O'CONNELL
wished to know how a Member who arrived in town on the day of the opening or proroguing Parliament, could not get his name placed on the list of those who desired to accompany the Speaker?

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, that the distinction of Cabinet Minister was sufficiently well known to warrant the suggestion of the Committee on that point. With respect to the usage of the coronation, it had been considered by the Committee; but there was an obvious distinction between the occasions now referred to, and the occasion of a coronation, because at the coronation it was not necessary for Members to go in any particular order, there being seats for all when they arrived at their destination; but it was different in 1929 the case of going to the House of Lords, where it was impossible to find room for all the Members. With respect to the case of Members who were out of town, but who wished to attend the Speaker, there need be no difficulty, because they could write to the clerk to that effect.