CALL OF THE HOUSE. (Hansard, 22 November 1852)

§ SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEY
begged to move, for his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), who was unavoidably absent, that the House be called over.

§ SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS
said, that, without any disrespect to the hon. Gentleman who had just moved that the House be called over, and with less disrespect towards the hon. Gentleman upon whose behalf he made that Motion, he must appeal to the experience of every Gentleman present—of those, at least, who had personal experience upon the subject, and of many others who knew historically the proceedings of that House—whether the attempt to call over the House were generally successful—whether it were not a mere brutum fulmen to the absent, and a great waste of time to those who were present. Obviously he did not rise to speak on his own behalf, or of as large a House as almost any Gentleman ever remembered—he did not rise to speak on behalf of the 450 Gentlemen then present ready to answer to their names; but on behalf of other Members who had not only had no notice, but who from the nature of things could not have had such notice; for when was the notice for a call of the House carried? After post-hour on Friday last; and he believed it would be physically impossible, with all the aids of modern science which had been bestowed upon the transmission of intelligence, for a notice of a call of the House to reach many of those distant quarters of the Queen's European dominions in which many Members were at present. It was not that the hon. Member (Mr. Hume) had not as full a right as any other hon. Member to do this, but he was perfectly astonished when he saw in the name of the hon. Member for Montrose a Motion to this effect, because, if there were one hon. Member more than another who had sat in that House continuously, it was that hon. Gentleman; and, if that hon. Gentleman had been present—and he regretted the cause of his absence—he would have appealed to him, whether in one single instance a call of the House had ever been productive of any advantage. Suppose the hon. Gentleman brought the 654 Members of whom that House consisted into their places, could he compel any one of them—he would not say to express his opinion, for, happily, they did not want that expression from all at any rate, but—to give his vote? He might bring him to his seat, but the moment an hon. Gentleman had answered to his name, he might, if he were so advised, leave the 304 House, and, except by another call of the House, the hon. Member could not compel his further attendance. Without, therefore, wasting more time of the House in attempting to induce the House not to waste further time in the prosecution of the present Motion, he should take the sense of the House upon it.

§ MR. COBDEN
said, that although he could not admit that the reasons of the hon. Gentleman were altogether valid, yet there might be a good deal said on both sides. The hon. Gentleman stated that, although they were called on that evening to answer to their names, yet there was no power to compel them to vote the next day. That was perfectly true; but, assuming that there were any hon. Gentlemen who wished to evade voting, or wished to run away, for that was the intimation—the object of a call of the House, as he understood it, was, that they might do their best to show to the country whether Members were in a condition to be there or not—whether they were in health to be present—whether they had any paramount engagement to prevent their being there—whether they could satisfy their constituents that there was a reason or physical impediment to prevent their being in the House on the next, as well as on that day. He thought, therefore, there was not in the hon. Gentleman's argument that cogency which many hon. Gentlemen supposed; but he thought the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) might be said to be all but completely successful, for he believed that there were present forty or fifty Members who had not taken the oaths of the House before that day. Seeing the great number around the table that day, it was evident that the Motion had had its full effect; he would therefore put it to his hon. Friend (Sir J. Walmsley) who represented the hon. Member for Montrose upon this occasion, whether he would press the matter to a division?

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he was one of those who voted for a call of the House; because, when an hon. Gentleman in the position of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) thought an important question was to be brought before the House, which made it proper to obtain as large an attendance as possible, seeing that that Motion was proposed more or less against the Government, he (Mr. Walpole) thought it his duty to vote for the call; but he so entirely agreed in the observations of the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. 305 Cobden) that the Motion for the call had really answered its purpose, and would be perfectly satisfactory to the hon. Member for Montrose, that he ventured to say it would be convenient to the House if the Motion were not pressed. No object could then be gained by calling it over, but possibly some great inconvenience might arise to hon. Members too far distant to have notice of the call; and for that reason, among others, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press the Motion.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, he begged to express his concurrence in the observations of the right hon. Gentleman.

SIR JOSHUA WALMSLBY
said, that in accordance with the wish of the House, he would withdraw the Motion.