HC Deb 18 March 1853 vol 125 cc437-46
LORD JOHN RUSSELL

I have now to move, Sir, that after Easter the Orders of the Day shall have precedence of Notices of Motions on Thursdays.

MR. DISRAELI

It is my inclination, Sir, and that, I am sure, of every Gentleman of this House, to facilitate as much as possible the conduct of the public business by the Government. I know myself how difficult at certain times and under certain circumstances the conduct of the public business is, and how much a Minister must depend upon the indulgence of independent Members. Therefore, I would myself be very unwilling to throw any obstacle in the way of a proposition made by the Government, the object of which is to place more time at their disposal, and to facilitate the conduct of the public business of the country. At the same time, however, Sir, the House must feel that there must be a limit to that indulgence. We must remember that in agreeing to a proposition of the kind that the noble Lord has made, we are not merely dealing with a question of our personal convenience, but we are dealing also with the privileges of our constituents. Those Gentlemen who are not in office—and consequently I speak of the vast majority of this House—have certain days allotted in each week at which they are enabled to bring subjects before the House and before the people of the country, some of which very nearly and narrowly touch the interests of the immediate constituency that sends them here. Therefore it becomes our duty when we consider a proposition of the kind now before us, which very much curtails the opportunities and trenches upon the privileges of independent Members, to look well at it, and to pause before we consent to such a proposition; and we ought to be perfectly convinced that we are justified in taking the course which the measure of the noble Lord recommends. Now I will recall to the attention of the House the circumstances under which we are summoned to consider the proposal of the noble Lord. The hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House very properly reminded them that the public business was never in so advanced a state at this period of the Session as it is at this moment. The holidays come upon us this year at an unusually early period, and the Government seems so little oppressed with a weight of business that they have most indulgently proposed a much longer period for relaxation than we are wont to obtain. Well, under such circumstances we are called upon early in the month of April to relinquish a moiety of that time during which we have an opportunity of asserting these principles, vindicating those views, and guarding those interests which we are sent here by our constituents to fulfil and accomplish. Now, let me remind the House of its course of conduct under similar circumstances in past years. In 1849, on the 2nd of April, the noble Lord, then also the leader of this House, proposed that on Thursday the 19th of that month, and on every alternate Thursday, Orders of the Day should have precedence of Notices of Motion. The noble Lord then only asked that Orders should have precedence of Motions on every alternate Thursday, and his proposal was not to be acceded to until the 19th of April. Well, then, that proposition was objected to. It was objected to by my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), who very properly proposed that the indulgence asked for by the noble Lord should not be accorded until the 31st of May. A distinguished Member of the House, a bold vindicator of the rights and privileges of the people—now Secretary of the Admiralty (Mr. B. Osborne), vindicated and upheld the views of the hon. Member (Mr. Hume), regarding the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London as an assault upon independent Members. ["Hear!" and laughter.] Yes, to ask for the alternate Thursdays after the 19th of April was considered by a distinguished Gentleman as an assault upon independent Members. However upon that occasion, if I recollect rightly, I had the honour, though it was with reluctance, of support- ing the noble Lord, as it is my invariable habit to stretch a point to the utmost to support the Minister when seeking to further the progress of public business. But what occurred in 1851, the last year of the Government over which the noble Lord presided? On the 13th of June the noble Lord moved that after the 1st of July Orders of the Day should have precedence of Notices of Motion. I will remind the House of what I then said. I objected to the proposal of the noble Lord, on the ground that an arrangement such as he suggested, could only be made to enable the Minister to introduce a variety of measures of the greatest importance; and I took the liberty of observing, that at that time there was not such a prolonged number of measures of that nature before the House as would justify it in making the sacrifice which they were called upon to make. And though I did not oppose the Motion of the noble Lord, I reminded hon. Members that the precedent was a most dangerous one—an admonition which I thought circumstances fully justified. Now, however, we are asked to relinquish, on the 4th of April, half the time at the disposal of independent Members—a concession which was objected to as late as July 1, 1851. And I will now invite the House to consider the comparative state of public business at the two periods. In the year 1851 there were fifty-four Bills in progress on the 1st of July, which were Orders of the Day; whereas in the year 1853 there are only twenty-five, and many of them Bills of private Members. Therefore, there is nothing to justify, in my opinion, the demand which the noble Lord has now made on the indulgence of the House. In 1851 an hon. Member who sits upon that side, one, I believe, of the most ardent supporters of the present Government, the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), objected to the proposition, and said that by acceding to it they would be surrendering the business of the House into the hands of the Government. I don't know what the hon. Gentleman thinks of the present proposition; but if the hon. Member considered that they would be surrendering the business of the House into the hands of the Government if they acceded to their proposition when, in the year 1851, they asked for the concession on the 1st of July, when the pressure of business was more than double the amount that at pre- sent exists; I think the hon. Member must well consider, before he gives a vote on the present occasion, in support of a similar proposition. All I would ask of the noble Lord would be to agree to reconsider this proposition, and, when we meet after the holidays, to place it before the House in a manner that circumstances may justify. Having generally, I believe invariably, supported the noble Lord in propositions of this kind, I do feel that on the present occasion, if we agree to the proposition, that we are trenching, injuriously trenching, on the rights of independent Members; and many opportunities will occur before the Session closes when, at both sides of the House, we may feel that we have too lightly and precipitately consented to this proposal. I hope the House will pardon me, but I say with unaffected humility that in the position I unworthily occupy as trustee of the rights not only of the Opposition, but of every independent Member, I must beg that the noble Lord will reconsider his proposition; if he perseveres in it, I will give it, though unwillingly, an unqualified opposition.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, his opinion with regard to this Motion was precisely the same as that which he expressed on the occasion just referred to, and he believed that the Government, instead of gaining would lose time by its adoption. There were at that time seventeen names down to ballot for Notices of Motion. He had himself a notice of the greatest importance respecting the economical management of the revenues of the country, and if the noble Lord should take the second day allotted to Members so early in the Session, he knew not what chance he (Mr. Williams) would have when competing with seventeen Members.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

Sir, I think it is my duty to lay before the House what I think will be the position of the House if it do not accede to my Motion. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) has referred to what has been the practice, as if that practice were entirely satisfactory, and one that should not be amended. The practice is, that three days are given to independent Members and two to the Government. It is not the case, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that two days only are given to independent Members, for on Wednesdays the Bills of independent Members are considered, and not the Bills of the Government, so that out of five days, at present three are given to independent Members. On the other hand, it has become more and more the practice—I will not say whether or not it is for the public advantage, but it frequently takes place—that private Members, having taken up a question of great public importance, call upon the Government to undertake the conduct of that question. All I ask is, that if Government should undertake the conduct of questions of great public importance, sufficient time should be allowed to them. Either they should not be asked to take up such Bills, or time should be given to proceed with them. If Government should take the conduct of Bills on which it was desirable some legislation should take place, more than two days in the week should be given to them. Has the conduct of affairs under different Governments been so satisfactory that it is for the House to say no change should now take place? I am referring to what has happened since the time of the Reform Bill, that is, during a period of twenty years, while Lord Althorp was leader of the House of Commons, afterwards when Sir Robert Peel was leader, and afterwards when I had the honour of conducting the business of the Government. We were always obliged, sometimes in July or in August, when it was evident the attention of the House was wearied, and when the House of Lords was not prepared to enter upon the consideration of new subjects of vast importance and considerable difficulty, to abandon eight or ten Bills, and say they must be postponed to another Session. Is that convenient or satisfactory? Very often there have been Bills which everybody acknowledged the importance of, in the principle of which everybody agreed, on which great time was spent, but to which further time must be devoted to go through the details in this House; and from the want of sufficient time it is utterly impossible to carry them up to the House of Lords, for their consideration, until a period when such measures are not likely to pass. I now ask the House to improve that system; and if the House shall refuse to do it, when they ask us to undertake various subjects, hon. Members must not he surprised if we decline to undertake them; because we calculate the time we have before us, and we propose sufficient business to take up the whole of that time, and we have endeavoured in this Session more than in former Sessions to suit the number of measures to the time there is for disposing of them. There are various subjects that will be brought on after Easter, for which considerable time will be required. There are the financial measures that will be introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the whole question of the principle of the income tax. There is another subject to which I mean to call the attention of the House on the very first day of meeting after Easter, namely, the subject of education. That is likely to take a considerable time; and there are various other subjects. There is also a Bill in the House of Lords, with regard to the registration of assurance of land, which is of very great importance, and which has been frequently postponed; and if the House do not agree to my Motion, we shall be compelled to postpone many important subjects to another Session.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE

said, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) was very plausible, but, speaking practically, the custom of assigning Tuesdays and Thursdays to independent Members, until nearly the close of the Session, did not work well. It frequently happened that on those nights no House assembled. In the Session of 1851 there was no House on one of those nights for several weeks successively. Then of what use to independent Members was Tuesday or Thursday as long as the Government was not responsible for making and keeping a House on that day? And what was the result of the present system? Why, towards the close of the Session, in consequence of the loss of so many nights in which business might have been transacted, Bills had to be forced through the House at morning sittings; and then, when the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams), for instance, came down, at the reassembling of the House at five o'clock in the evening, with his Motion with regard to the revenue, the House was counted out. That had been the practice over and over again. If, therefore, the noble Lord the Member for the City of London should divide upon his Motion, he (Mr. Duncombe) would gladly support him.

LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR

said, he thought the House would admit that the more frequently measures of importance, propounded by independent Members, were taken up by the Government, the better it would be for the country at large. The practice of Government taking up such measures had become more frequent of late, and it was therefore of importance that the Government should have more of the time of the House at their disposal than they had some years ago. He should give his support to the Motion of the noble Lord. He begged, however, at the same time, to suggest a modification of that Motionc—he proposed that the noble Lord should permit independent Members who had Motions on the paper to be allowed the two first Tuesdays and Thursdays after the Easter holidays.

MR. WALPOLE

said, the noble Lord, according to his own statement, was endeavouring to introduce a new practice into the House, and he (Mr. Walpole) could not help reminding hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House, who appeared to be so anxious to support the noble Lord on this occasion, that if they happened to be sitting on the Opposition side when such a Motion as this was proposed, they would have opposed it most strenuously. Independent Members ought to have a sufficient number of days on which to call the attention of the Government and the House to those questions which appeared to those Members to be of interest, but with respect to which it was not probable that the Government would propose any measures. And when the noble Lord the Member for the City of London said that, which was perfectly true, namely, that now-a-days more business was thrown upon the Government than heretofore, he (Mr. Walpole) must say that that was greatly owing to the discussions which took place upon the Motions of independent Members in the first instance. Measures were frequently ventilated year after year by independent Members, and frequently the Government were forced to take them up. The noble Lord had said truly that a great deal of business would have to be submitted to the House after Easter, for, in addition to the questions of national education and the income tax, there was the whole question relating to India, which must be submitted on an early day after the recess. There were also the important question of the alteration of the transportation system, and that of secondary punishments, to be considered after Easter. All those, no doubt, were important subjects; nevertheless, he thought that the Government might take the alternate Thursdays in the first instance, and see how that arrangement would work until the month of May. That was as great a concession as the House would be justified, in his opinion, in mak- ing to the Government at the present moment. The noble Lord had made one other observation, upon which he (Mr. Walpole) should like to make a remark. The noble Lord had said that on some days towards the end of the Session, the business paper was crowded with Bills—sometimes as many as thirty a day. The Government were forced to throw over those Bills to another Session, because they had not time to go on with them. Now, he (Mr. Walpole) had often thought that that was mainly owing to this cause—the Government went on with those questions which excited the greatest interest, and would gain for them, as they thought, the greatest popularity. But he was persuaded that if the Government would proceed in the first instance with the questions of less importance, they would get through a vast number of measures, and be able to send them to the House of Lords before the end of the Session. He agreed with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli) that it was unreasonable to press the Government unduly with the business which the House was now in the habit of throwing upon them; but, considering that Easter happened very early this year, and that there were already seventeen notices of Motion on the paper by independent Members, he thought the Government ought to take only the alternate Thursdays during the month of April, and then they might, in May, ask that every Thursday should be given up to them.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

Sir, I think what has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat, rather confirms the propriety of the Motion of my noble Friend, because he has mentioned to the House some subjects of great importance, and which are likely to lead to very prolonged discussions. Those remarks tended to show that, unless some additional time was given to the Government, it would be impossible to get through that business which the House and the country expect to be transacted shortly after the recess. My hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe) mentioned a matter which deserves the consideration of the House—namely, that through want of time towards the end of the Session the House is exhausted by business, and the business of the Government and of Committees is, consequently, very materially interfered with. My hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) given as a reason why this Mo- tion should not be agreed to, that he has a subject which he will propound to the House, and which of itself would take considerable time to discuss. Why, Sir, that is just an instance of the way in which the time of the Government is trenched upon, and shows the necessity of giving more time to the Government. I have no doubt that my noble Friend would be very willing to agree to an arrangement which would give hon. Members who have notices on the paper time to bring forward their subjects; but I really think that, with the view of enabling the Government to carry those measures which the House and the country demand at their hands, the Motion of my noble Friend should be agreed to. I think the experience of former Sessions shows the absolute necessity of placing within the command of the Government a greater amount of time than by the existing arrangements they have at present at their disposal.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he did not think that the observations of the noble Lord who had just sat down at all justified the proposal of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. He thought that it was a premature Motion. There had been no disposition on the Opposition side of the House not to concede extra days to the Government towards the close of the Session. He would venture to suggest to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, the propriety of making an alteration in their practice, which he thought would gain for the Government more time for the transaction of business than they now had. A practice had prevailed more and more of late of raising debates upon the question that the House at its rising on Friday should adjourn until Monday. The last instance to which he would refer on that subject, was the discussion introduced by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) on Friday last with regard to India. One of the most flagrant instances, however, was that which occurred about two years ago, when the noble Viscount the present Secretary for the Home Department addressed the House at great length with reference to Spanish policy. The noble Lord ought to agree to any proposition which might be made to prevent such discussions as these on the simple question that the House, on its rising on Friday, do adjourn until Monday.

MR. HUME

said, he was opposed to the Motion of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell). Independent Members were gradually los- ing all the opportunities which they had of submitting the complaints of their constituents, and their schemes of reform, to the House. The privilege of making a speech on the presentation of a petition had, amongst other privileges, been taken away from hon. Members. He hoped that the noble Lord the Member for the City of London would not ask the House to agree to any proposition on this subject until after the Easter recess.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, he would alter his Motion so as to take from the 18th of April instead of the 4th, in order to meet the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord R. Grosvenor).

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That after Monday the 18th day of April next, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions on Thursdays."

MR. DEEDES

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) had not made any distinct proposal to the House, but he would follow up his suggestion by moving as an Amendment, "That on and after the 2nd of May next, Orders of the Day have precedence over Motions on Thursdays."

Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "18th day of April," in order to insert the words "2nd day of May," instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCH

said, he thought it was not worth the while of the House to divide, now that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had altered his Motion.

Mr. DEEDES

said, he would withdraw his Amendment, so that the House could divide on the proposition as altered by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell).

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 171; Noes 139: Majority 32.