SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE—MOTION. (Hansard, 8 February 1859)

MR. W.EWART
said, he rose to move, That on every Tuesday and Thursday (being nights on which Government business does not take precedence) the House do not sit later than twelve o'clock at night. He believed he was justified in saying that this Motion was strongly approved by the late Speaker (Lord Eversley), one of the most able and experienced Speakers who ever presided over the House. He was convinced of the necessity of bringing their debates to a close at an early hour, and had repeatedly expressed an opinion that the debates on Wednesdays, when the sitting terminated at six o'clock, were the best and most practical be ever heard within those walls. He (Mr. Ewart) concurred with the late Speaker: the Motion was expedient in every sense of the word. It was not a party Motion; Members on both sides of the House were in favour of it if they would venture to speak out; and he should imagine that Her Majesty's Government were not, in their hearts, disposed to offer any opposition to it. The plan he proposed would be to adopt a rule similar to that observed on Wednesdays; that every Tuesday and Thursday nights at the hour of half-past eleven, measures should be taken to close all the opposed business, 191 and then to proceed with the remaining business on the paper which was not of a debateable nature, so that the House might rise at twelve. He had endeavoured to anticipate what objections could be made to the plan; but on ordinary nights he could not see any objection at all. In fact, it would make a very slight change from what was the practice already. The business on such nights was now generally and virtually closed at twelve. It was found that to prolong a debate beyond that hour was of no advantage whatever. The proposed change would only be following the tendency of Parliamentary Practice. The difference might be that of an hour or two. But that hour or two after midnight was now wasted on the mere externals of business. It ought to be objected that the change proposed would prematurely close a debate about to be adjourned. But, even if a debate were adjourned over Tuesday night, the adjournment itself was generally made before midnight. It might be said that the rule might prevent a debate already adjourned from coming to a close on the Tuesday night; but he thought there was no reason in this objection. If Members once knew that the debate must close at a certain hour, they would adapt their speeches to the necessity of the case, and by rendering them shorter make them more satisfactory to the House and to the country. The rule might be considered as somewhat encroaching on the freedom of debate for independent Members; but if an independent Member did not now bring on his Motion before twelve o'clock he had no chance of bringing it on at all, and he would scarcely be worse off than at present. He hoped no hon. Member supposed that the House gained time by its extraordinary late sitting; he believed that, on the contrary, they caused a great loss of time. He could as easily think that prodigality in money matters was the same thing as economy, as that prodigality of time was equivalent to a saving of time. At a certain hour they were all aware that all must yield to that inevitable and inexorable power, the power of sleep. On it no argument, no eloquence could prevail. Dean Swift, in his celebrated sermon on Eutychus falling from the third loft, said that preaching might confirm the penitent, or convert the most hardened sinner, but it could have no effect on the determined sleeper. If a foreigner entered the House during a debate 192 prolonged to a very late hour what would he behold? There lies the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "like Palinurus nodding at the helm." There the Admiralty, the impersonation of the naval power of Britain, prone, or rather supine, on its beam-ends. The Home Department, the great regulator of the prisons of the empire, is itself imprisoned in the bonds of sleep; and even the Woods and Forests seemed to be nodding to their fall. Behind them their brave and faithful followers—fortisque Gyas, fortisque Cloanthus—their brave and faithful followers successfully imitated the conduct of their superiors. But why need be pursue the subject? In these matters the House seemed to have retained the more extravagant habits of the days of Pitt, Fox, and Sheridan. The Crown had set them a better example, and the House would do well to imitate it. His proposal was only an approximation to a further reform in this respect. He thought they would transact their business a great deal better if they took part of the "solid day" for it; in short, if their legislation were diurnal instead of nocturnal. It would be more satisfactory both to the public and their own consciences. But, in the meantime the slight alteration he proposed would be a relief to the House, to its officers, and, above all, to the Speaker, on whom, when almost all others had retired, the remaining business fell, as the residuary legatee of the labours of Parliament.

§ MR. LAURIE
said, that he had much pleasure in seconding the Motion, which he thought one that the House would do well to consider. He felt a great objection to long speeches at late hours of the night. They must have all observed the wearisome appearance of those who sat up to daybreak in the course of the last Session. He had heard it said it would be impossible to pass the Government measures if the House were prevented doing any business beyond "the witching doing of night." Now he thought that that was by no means a creditable state of things. He was asked the other day to take the chair at a meeting of the Early Closing Association; but he felt he could not consistently do so, as he belonged to a House that frequently sat up to a late hour of the morning. He was of opinion that if they limited their time of business and shortened their speeches, and thus allow themselves and others to get to bed soon after twelve o'clock, they would 193 enjoy a much longer life, and render their legislation more effective.

MR. LOCKE KING
said, he was sorry to differ in opinion from the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) in his proposition to curtail the very few hours that were given to independent Members. The Government, in all probability, would not refuse their assent to the proposition, as it was one which did not materially affect them. He thought if the hon. Gentleman would but extend the principle of his proposition to the other days of the week he thought it would be one of more equal justice; he would find that the Government would not consent so readily. Sleep was as necessary to hon. Members on Monday and Friday nights as on Tuesday and Thursday nights. He trusted that his hon. Friend would not press his Motion to a division.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he conceived that the hon. Member opposite merely wished to call the attention of the House to what he thought a very good regulation for them to observe—namely, that they should all curtail their speeches as much as possible, to enable them to get to bed at a reasonable time. The hon. Gentleman could scarcely be serious in imagining that it would be of any advantage to public business for them to lay down a fixed rule binding them to close their proceedings on certain nights at a particular hour. It was perfectly true that Tuesdays and Thursdays were the only evenings on which independent Members could bring forward their Motions. It would not be quite reasonable for the Government, at least, to seek to abridge the opportunities which those hon. Gentlemen had of stating their views on any particular question. Besides, the hon. Member might derive a lesson on this point from what happened on Wednesdays, when the House at present attempted to limit the hours of debate. It was found that any hon. Member then wishing to throw any Motion over had it in his power to effect that object by prolonging his speech till six o'clock, when a postponement must necessarily take place. That circumstance weighed so strongly on his own mind that he thought it would be much wiser to rely upon the good understanding which prevailed in the House, as well as upon the good sense and good feeling of individual Members, for bringing the public business to an early close on these and all other evenings, than to adopt a stringent and unbending rule 194 which might operate most inconveniently.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, his objection was that the Motion did not go far enough. In his opinion it was more important to apply its principle to Government nights as well as to those on which independent Members had the precedence. Hundreds of Bills were now passed between one and two o'clock in the morning, when it was impossible that their defects could be properly corrected before they became law; the consequence was that they all had to be amended the next Session.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, he was quite willing to do justice to the motives of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart), and he concurred in the general object of his Motion—namely, that they should endeavour to compress their debates within as narrow limits as were compatible with the proper consideration and full discussion of the subjects brought under their notice. He was sorry, however, that he could not agree to the terms of his proposition. In the first place, it was very unadvisable that the House should bind itself by self-denying ordinances which were not absolutely necessary for the conduct of business. Subjects of the utmost and most pressing importance frequently came under their consideration, and the public service would suffer if they were prevented, by a rule requiring them to close their proceedings at a fixed hour, from bringing those matters to an issue on the night on which their discussion commenced. Suppose an important Motion to be brought on upon a Monday. It might often be impossible to conclude the debate to which it gave rise in one night, in which case it must be adjourned till Tuesday. It might happen to be of serious consequence to the public interests that it should be terminated on Tuesday; but under the rule proposed by his hon. Friend, it would be quite easy for anybody resorting to the practice hinted at by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to spin out the debate till twelve o'clock, when it must inevitably stand adjourned to Thursday. The same course might be pursued on Thursday, and the debate would again have to be adjourned till Friday. Great inconvenience might result from these frequent postponements, and he was, therefore, disposed to leave the House unfettered in dealing with questions of public importance, according to their urgency. There was a general feeling among hon. Gentlemen in favour of 195 closing their debates as early as practicable, and it would, therefore, be much better to trust to the judgment of the House at the moment in all such cases, than to tie its hands by an inflexible rule which, however well intended, would often work prejudicially to the public service.

§ MR. W. EWART
, in reply, said, that the objection with regard to speaking against time existed now on other days as well as on Wednesdays. He would willingly cede his opinion to the noble Lord and other hon. Members who had spoken, but he had quoted the opinion of the most experienced person in the proceedings of that House, the late Speaker, and sheltering himself under that authority, though with great respect for the opposite opinions which had been expressed, he felt it to be right to take the opinion of the House on the subject.