HC Deb 15 November 1852 vol 123 cc158-63
MR. BROTHERTON

rose to move a Resolution to the effect—"That in the present Session of Parliament no business shall be proceeded with in that House after midnight; and that at Twelve o'clock at night precisely, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any question." He looked upon his Motion as one of considerable importance, and when it was considered that every Legislature in Europe and America conducted their business in the daytime, he thought it most preposterous that the British Legislature should not he content to close its proceedings by Twelve o'clock at night. He trusted he should have the support of the Government on the present occasion, as also the support of the Members of the legal profession, who, when they were obliged to sit late in that House, must find it impossible to attend to their avocations the next morning. As matters now stood, the officers and clerks of the House were sometimes obliged to remain at their posts for fifteen or sixteen hours, and the persons who were connected with the Administration could not pay that full attention to their business which they might do if the House would only close its proceedings at a reasonable hour. It might be objected that inconvenience would arise from adjourning the House always at a fixed hour, as in such case some hon. Members might occasionally speak against time; but on Wednesdays they terminated the sitting at a fixed hour, and that inconvenience had not practically been felt. And even if there should be inconvenience now and then, it would be a less evil than wasting time by debating for two or three hours after midnight whether the debate should be adjourned or not. It might be said, that Members need not stay in the House after midnight, unless they pleased; but some Members wished to discharge their duty conscientiously, and therefore remained so long as the House was sitting. He was convinced that by the adoption of the Resolution, the business of the House would be facilitated; that it would be more favourable to the health of Members, and be more satisfactory to the country.

MR. EWART,

in seconding the Motion, said, he wished that the proposition was one which would have the effect of assimilating more their business to the course they adopted on Wednesdays. It was stated, by a high authority, that more real practical business was done by that House on the Wednesdays than on any of the other days of the week. He (Mr. Ewart) considered that after twelve o'clock at night, those Members who were really anxious to do their duty might with great reason and propriety protest against proceeding any further with the business of the Legislature. The practice of sitting beyond twelve o'clock was most injurious to the health of the Members generally, especially to that of the Ministers, who had so many other duties to attend to. He had seen Ministers at such a time, while endeavouring to push forward business, actually sinking under the weight of their labour. He believed that the voice of the country was with his hon. Friend in taking this step. The voice of common sense was, at all events, in his favour.

Motion made, and Question put— That in the present Session of Parliament no Business shall be proceeded with in this House after midnight; and that, at Twelve o'clock at night precisely, notwithstanding there may be Business under discussion, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he thought the practice of sitting so late at night was most discreditable to that House. Bills of the utmost importance were passed over night without the slightest consideration. Oftentimes were they called upon after midnight to dispose of thirty or forty Orders of the Day, and the consequence was, that measures were hurried through in an imperfect manner, and had to be amended in subsequent Sessions. It might be said that the mass of public business could not be otherwise got through; but every one acquainted with the mode of business in that House was acquainted with the fact that the early part of the Session was consumed in discussion upon Bills that in many cases were never intended to be passed, and in others were withdrawn at the close of the Session. Never had the business been so well conducted as at the close of last Session, when the House sat early. He hoped the Government would give at least a trial to this Motion.

SIR WILLIAM CLAY

said, the object of his hon. Friend in this Motion was really within his own power, by moving an adjournment after midnight. He thought there were many occasions on which the House would feel the enormous importance of forwarding certain Bills a stage, although it might be after midnight; and he therefore urged his hon. Friend not to press his Motion, but to leave it to the good sense and good taste of hon. Members.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the business of the House had very much increased of late years, and the gist of this Motion was to reduce the time they could dedicate to the transaction of it. The proposition of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Brotherton) was really to establish a restriction on debate; it was an extraordinary proposition in a free-trade age and a free-trade House of Commons. The hon. Baronet who had last addressed them, had reminded the hon. Gentleman of his frequent exercise of the salutary privilege of moving the adjournment of the House after midnight, and no doubt on many occasions it had contributed very much to public convenience; but there had been occasions when hon. Gentlemen had made Motions that the debate should terminate, on which an irresistible feeling had been shown on both sides of the House that the termination of the debate under such circumstances would be extremely inexpedient to the public welfare and public business. An iron inflexible rule on the question would be highly inconvenient. The subject had been very much considered in the Committee on Public Business. This restriction in debate was very much like the plan for limiting the duration of a speech, upon which point the Members of the Committee, formed from all parties of the House, came to an almost unanimous opinion, that if such a resolution were adopted, many hon. Gentlemen whom the House did not wish to hear would certainly speak for the hour, while the Gentlemen whom the House wished to speak more than an hour, would be prevented from doing so. As to the sanitary part of the question alluded to, and the reference made to the mode in which the business of the House was car- ried on during the latter part of the Session, he could only say that if a sanitary consideration was alone to influence the hon. Gentlemen who supported the proposition, he did not think that they would persevere in it. It would be totally impossible that the system of meeting at an early hour of the day could be generally acted upon. They were obliged to meet very early every day during the last month of the previous Session for the purpose of hurrying on the dissolution, and of disposing of the important business which it was absolutely essential to transact. They were consequently obliged very frequently to sit for a period of fourteen hours in the day. Now, when hon. Members recollected the arduous duties of the Government, and the necessity of their attending to their offices, as well as in their places in that House, they must admit the impossibility of their continuing for any length of time such a system of prolonged labour. He doubted much whether they would be able to undertake the duties of a Government if such a demand was to be made upon their time. He really thought that the question might be left to the good taste of the House; for he had seen many instances where rigid rules failed to accomplish that which, when left to the good taste and feeling of hon. Members, was successfully achieved. It would be his duty, therefore, to oppose the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, though he readily admitted it was introduced with the best and most commendable intentions.

MR. HUME

said, he should support the Motion, for in the opinion of the public the manner in which the business of that House was managed was not consistent with a due regard to the great interests committed to its care. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had ridiculed the idea of hon. Members being compelled to make short speeches, but he (Mr. Hume) was not quite sure that such a regulation would not have a most salutary effect. At all events, he had heard that the adoption of a limitation of the sort, in an assembly in another country, had, after some six or eight months' practice, been attended with very satisfactory results. He thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Brotherton) had acted perfectly right in thus appealing to the good sense of the House, and asking them to adopt some mode by which their late sittings might be abridged. If the plan proposed by his hon. Friend were agreed to as a general rule, leaving extraordinary cases as exceptions, he believed they would soon find that they had got rid of one-half of the obnoxious measures which were now being constantly brought before them. He (Mr. Hume) had been the innovator in the case of the Wednesday sittings, and he thought he should have the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, as well as the great majority of the Members of that House, in favour of that alteration. Adopt the Motion of his hon. Friend, and equally beneficial results would be the consequence.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, that, however satisfactory the limitation of the sittings of that House might be to the public, and great as the convenience of such an arrangement might be to hon. Members, yet he believed that they would not improve the mode of carrying on the business of the House by merely adopting the Motion under discussion. The House must be aware there was not a legislative assembly in the world which transacted nearly half as much business as the House of Commons did. With regard to the example of the Congress of the United States, it should be remembered that the whole of the local business of the Union was carried on by the several State Legislatures, and, moreover, that as the whole of the Administration formed no part of Congress, therefore there were not in that assembly those debates as to matters of administration which took up so much of the time of this House. Considering then that they had this amount of business to do, he put it to them whether it might not become necessary very much to alter all their other rules in case they agreed to the present proposition. If that was to be the case, let them have the whole scheme to be proposed for a different mode of conducting the business of the House laid before a Committee, and not begin by at once adopting the Motion of the hon. Member for Salford. With regard to reducing the number of stages through which Bills had to pass in that House, let him remind hon. Gentlemen that it was not many years ago that, from the introduction of a Bill to its passing, there were not less than thirty-two questions put. Adopt the proposition now made, and it would probably become necessary to still further reduce the number of questions which were still put—to read a Bill a first and second time, and not go to a third reading at all, or some change of that sort. It appeared to him (Lord J. Russell), that, however large might be the accumulation of Bills at the end of the Session, yet they could not agree to a proposal of this kind without first considering all the consequences which might result from it. He did not say that it was not possible to adopt some scheme by which the increased business of the House might be better transacted; but to accept the Motion of the hon. Member for Salford under present circumstances would, in his opinion, be highly imprudent.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he would have supported the Motion if he could have done Be with propriety, because he should be glad to prevent that system of midnight legislation which had sometimes been conducted with such evil effects in that House. But unfortunately the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Brotherton) had overshot the mark in not limiting his Resolution to the introduction of new business. If his hon. Friend would bring forward some Motion by which no new business should be introduced after midnight, unless with the distinct leave of the House, such a proposition as that would come before them with effect; although even that might require some further consideration, as suggested by the noble Lord opposite. Under existing circumstances, it was clear that if they adopted the Motion of the hon. Member for Salford, they would put it in the power of any party in the House to talk any question out. That would be so fatal to their deliberations that he could not give his support to the Motion.

MR. BROTHERTON,

in reply, said, he must express his regret that he could not enlist the leading Members of the House in support of his Motion: the discussion had only tended to show how much more difficult it was to unlearn bad habits than to acquire good ones.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 64; Noes 260: Majority 196.

List of the AYES.
Alcock, T. Cutler, C. S.
Anderson, Sir J. Carter, S.
Barnes, T. Challis, Ald.
Barrow, W. H. Cheetham, J.
Beaumont, W. B. Cobbett, J. M.
Bell, J. Coffin, W.
Bellew, Capt. Crook, J.
Biggs, W. Dufly, C. G.
Brady, J. Duke, Sir J.
Brocklehurst, J. Duncan, G.
Brown, H. Dunlop, A. M.
Brown, W. Evans, Sir De L.
Fagan, W. Miall, E.
Ferguson, J. Milligan, R.
Fitzgerald, Sir J. F. Moffatt, G.
Gregson, S. Murphy, F. S.
Greville, Col. F. Oliveira, B.
Hadfield, G. Pellatt, A.
Hall, Sir B. Pilkington, J.
Hastie, A. Pollard-Urquhart, W.
Heathcoat, J. Sadleir, J.
Henchy, D. O.C. Scobell, Capt.
Hindley, C. Scully, F.
Hume, J. Shee, W.
Ingham, B. Shelley, Sir J. V.
Keating, R. Strickland, Sir G.
Kennedy, T. Thicknesse, R. A.
Keogh, W. Thomson, G.
King, hon. P. J. L. Walmsley, Sir J.
Kirk, W. Williams, W.
Lowe, R.
Lucas, F. TELLERS.
M'Mahon, P. Brotherton, J.
Meagher, T. Ewart, W.

The House adjourned at Seven o'clock.