HC Deb 31 July 1860 vol 160 cc441-8
MR. W. EWART

said, that he rose to move certain Resolutions with respect to the conduct of the business of the House. Every hon. Member, he was sure, must take an interest at all times in the conduct of the business of the House of Commons, and if ever there was a time when the people of this country looked with anxiety upon the conduct of public business in that House, it was at the present moment. He should, however, abstain from proposing any sweeping changes, and confine himself to the suggestion of a few practical reforms which he believed would expedite the business of the House, and diminish the evils which resulted from the present system of late hours. It had been suggested that private Bills should be disposed of by a body of a more judicial constitution. But if he could choose his own Amendments he should be strongly inclined to revert to the simplicity of former times. Why should not that House sit in the daytime? Six or seven hours a day steadily devoted to the business of the country would give much more satisfactory results than did the protracted hours through which they were now in the habit of sitting, when hon. Member after hon. Member rose to vex the drowsy ear of night with long-winded speeches. The present system was one, not of economy, but of prodigality of time. Of the Resolutions which he should propose, that to which he attached most value was the last—namely, that in the interval between this and the next Session of Parliament the Government should consider this important subject, in order that any Resolutions at which they might arrive should be submitted to a Select Committee. It had often been suggested that, in order to avoid the frequent divisions upon adjournments which sometimes occurred, the House should adopt the plan of closing the debate upon a question to that effect, which formerly prevailed in Prance, and now to a certain extent obtained in America. He had included such a proposition among his Resolutions, but, as there appeared to be a great diversity of opinion upon the subject, he should not press the House to adopt it. The principle of a Bill was frequently discussed on the introduction of the measure, on the second reading, and on going into Committee, and even in Committee. What he proposed was that there should be only one discussion upon it, and that on other occasions the Speaker or the Chairman of Committee should stop any hon. Member who travelled from the details into the principle of the Bill. When Supply was coming on the paper was almost always crowded with notices to anticipate the House going into Committee. Supply was the very source and fountain of the power of that House, and ought not, in his opinion, to be so dealt with. It was right that some allowance should be made to hon. Members who wished to bring on other subjects before Supply, but their power to do so ought not to be unlimited, and he therefore proposed that if such a discussion was not concluded by 8 o'clock the debate should be postponed, and the House should at that hour at once go into Committee. He had often observed that during the first two or three weeks of a Session no business at all was done, and he therefore proposed that Government Bills should be introduced, and, as far as possible, proceeded with, early in the Session. Had such a course been adopted with regard to the Bankruptcy Bill, the loss of which he deeply regretted, it might now I have been the law of the land. The next proposal was in accordance with one which had been made in "another place,"—that Bills which had reached a certain stage in one Session should be resumed at the same stage in the next. He believed that much mischief was caused by the late hours to which the House sat, and he thought it would be desirable that no new or opposed business should be proceeded with after twelve o'clock. Such a rule existed during the Ministry of Sir Robert Peel, and was practically followed while the right hon. Gentleman opposite was leader of the House. It would economize both time and the health of Members if that rule were generally adhered to. His main proposition, however, was that which bound the Government to consider the subject, and to submit such opinions as they might have formed to be deliberated upon by a Select Committee in the ensuing Session of Parliament. The questions were worthy the consideration of a Parliamentary Government, and he trusted the House would at least display some vigour in endeavouring to amend their rules for the conduct of public business. e therefore submitted the Resolutions with full confidence to the consideration of the House and the Government.

MR. HADFIELD

seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the discussion on the principle of a Bill be confined to the time of its introduction and Second or Third Reading; and that the Speaker (or Chairman in Committee) do enforce such rule.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

Nothing can be more true than what the hon. Member stated, that the character of this House and its reputation in the country must in the end depend upon the manner in which it transacts its business, and that, therefore, every hon. Member has a personal interest in establishing and maintaining rules for the efficient conduct of our business. It is not a question in which the Government have a peculiar interest; it is the common interest of the whole House. Perhaps it would be a curious matter of calculation to ascertain how much time is lost during a Session in discussions as to the time when measures are to be brought on. Everybody must know that sometimes there are complaints that measures are brought on too soon, that there is not sufficient information laid before the House, and that hours upon hours are lost before the House will consent even to consider a Bill. Again, when a measure is brought on, there are perpetual attempts to obstruct its progress by moving adjournments, by proposing further inquiry, and by complaints that papers in sufficient quantity have not been laid on the table. In that manner a considerable portion of most precious time is occupied, not in discussing measures, but in discussing when we should discuss them. It is quite impossible, I am aware, that we should lay down, as Courts of Justice lay down, an inflexible rule that when a case is called on it shall be proceeded with. We cannot impose an equally stringent rule upon the Members of this House; but I think we must all see that the very essence of the decisions of this Assembly is that the voice of the majority should prevail; that, while we establish safeguards against coercing a minority and proceeding too precipitately to a decision, it is absolutely necessary, in order to maintain the freedom of our discussions, that the voice of the majority should ultimately prevail over the minority. It would be advisable that from time to time a Committee should be appointed to consider whether any improvements could be made in our rules with respect to the transaction of business. A considerable period has elapsed since such a Committee sat. The last time there was such a Committee various wholesome improvements were suggested and acted upon, and I think that at the beginning of next Session a Committee of that sort might be appointed with great advantage. In the meanwhile it would be, perhaps, useless to occupy the time of the House in discussing the propositions of the hon. Member for Dumfries. I understood that he wishes by his first Resolution to exclude the discussion of the principle of a Bill upon the question of the Speaker leaving the Chair, and I gathered from his speech that, in point of fact, he thinks there should be only one discussion on the principle of a measure. That is one of those questions upon which it is difficult to lay down an inflexible rule. Great loss of time is occasioned by a perpetual recurrence in Committee to the principle of a measure; but, on the other hand, if from any accident there has been no sufficient discussion upon the second reading, it is often convenient to be able to discuss the principle upon the Motion for going into Committee, and, at any rate, I think it would be difficult to lay down any absolute rule on that point. In his second Resolution the hon. Member has overlooked the case of the Motion for going into Committee of Supply being made after 8 o'clock, which I am afraid is not a very unusual occurrence now-a-days. If the Resolution were carried as it stands, it would apply to 8 o'clock in the morning and not 8 o'clock in the evening. With respect to public Bills being proceeded with at the stage at which they left off in the previous Session, that is a change which I confess, for one, I should see with great satisfaction. It would lead to a considerable saving of the public time. I am aware there is some difference of opinion on the point, and the proposed alteration could not be carried into effect, at least as respects both Houses, without the passing of a Bill. The next proposition is, "that Bills introduced by the Government be as far as is practicable brought on and proceeded with early in the Session." Hitherto the rule has always been enforced that there should be only two Government nights before Easter. One of these has to a great extent been occupied by Motions upon the adjournment until Monday. That, I hope, will be rectified by the new Standing Order, that the Government night shall be Thursday instead of Friday. But the two Government nights before Easter are often occupied by Estimates, and upon going into Committee of Supply very often half the night is consumed by other Motions. It is, therefore, not easy for the Government to make great progress with their Bills before Easter. With respect to the consideration of this subject by the Government during the recess, that, of course, is easily effected, but the great difficulty is when propositions are made to induce the House to adopt them. I hope, however, that if a Committee be appointed early next Session, they will be able to suggest some practical means for effecting an object which all must desire to see accomplished.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) entertained the belief that it was necessary to establish a limit to their proceeding after a certain hour of the night, he (Mr. Newdegate) had previously urged the necessity for a similar limitation; he had proposed a limit after one in the morning. Hon. Members would forgive him for reminding them that one of the best rules would be that Government business only should be taken on Government nights and should be strictly adhered to. The attempt to advance the Bills of private Members on Government nights, necessarily at late hours and in thin houses, frequently led to minorities being forced to use the forms of the House—which, though often abused were, after all, the great protection for freedom of discussion and the protection of the country against hasty and bad legislation. He quite agreed with the two last suggestions of the hon. Member, as he believed that a great deal depended upon the Government introducing their measures earlier in the Session. If it were found that two nights a week before Easter were not sufficient for the Government business he thought that the House would be more likely to consider the propriety of granting the Government more days by being early informed of what Bills the Government proposed. No more important Committee had ever sat on this subject than that of 1848, on which Sir Robert Peel served, and before which M. Guizot, as to the practice in France, and Mr. Curtis, as to the practice in America, gave evidence. That Committee strongly recommended the Government to consider it an important part of their functions to use their influence in regulating the business and proceedings of the House, and he (Mr. Newdegate) believed that they could not better use their power than by adhering to the determination not to allow private Members to usurp the nights allotted to Government business, and, above all by the earlier introduction of such business as they intended to submit to the judgment of Parliament during the Session.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he had never known the public business of the House conducted in so unsatisfactory a manner as it had been during the present Session. Hon. Members were called on to assemble at noon, and to continue sitting till 2, 3, and 4 o'clock in the morning; and, after all, there was no time properly to examine the great measures before the House. Consequently a great portion of one Session after another was occupied in amending Bills passed in the antecedent Session. It was the end of July and the Miscellaneous Estimates were scarcely commenced. There was a period when the Government agreed to the principle which the late Mr. Brotherton insisted upon, that no new business should be brought forward after 12 o'clock at night, and then time was not wasted, as it had been in the present Session, by sittings continued until 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. He entirely concurred in the Motion of the hon. Member for Dumfries. The House had been sitting for six months, and what had it to show for its labours except some important measures brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He often felt for the drudgery which Mr. Speaker was called on to undergo, and the noble Lord at the head of the Government exhibited an extraordinary example of industry by sitting in the House till the latest hour. What was wanted, however, was not mere drudgery, but that the business of the country should be conducted on rational principles.

MR. HADFIELD

said, he regretted as much as any one the great waste of time which had taken place in the conduct of business. There were certain constitutional rules which should be respected, such as that the statement of grievances should precede the grant of Supplies, but there were besides such a variety of means of throwing dust in the eyes of the House that the House really could not get on with its business. The statement made yesterday by the noble Lord at the head of the Government would be sympathised in by the whole country. Justice was really not done to the Executive Government for their endeavours to carry on the business, and they were literally prevented from passing great measures by the course of proceedings adopted. He thought the suggestion thrown out by the Secretary of State, respecting a Committee sitting from time to time, of great importance, and he implored the noble Lord at the head of the Government to recommend, with his great influence, some mode of conducting the business of the House which would be satisfactory to the country.

LORD HOTHAM

said, he felt bound to declare, though no one was more convinced than himself of the great waste of time which constantly took place in that House, that he should witness with great regret any curtailment of those opportunities for discussion which any hon. Member might think it his duty to avail himself of. It must be recollected that the frequent opportunities for discussion, to which allusion had been made, were intended principally for the protection of Members sitting on the Opposition side of the House; and, though it did not now seem likely that a necessity would occur for the use of these' opportunities, still there was no knowing how soon an altered state of things might arise. He should, therefore, be sorry to give up those opportunities, either for discussion, or even for impeding the progress of public business, should a sense of public duty compel hon. Members, under peculiar circumstances, to resort to them. He doubted, too, whether any regulations which might be made would not be easily evaded, and he thought it would be better if the House could be prevailed on to return a little more to what used to be the custom for many years after the period when he first sat in Parliament. There now existed a system of constantly adjourning debates, and with what result? Simply this, that there never was the same audience on two nights, and the House, on every night after the first night's discussion, was almost empty for three or four hours while Members went away to dinner. Such a state of things was most discreditable, and must strike with astonishment the strangers who were permitted to be present to hear the debates. The result of this system of constantly adjourning debates was not to bring fresh light on the discussion, but to give, night after night, an opportunity for prepared speeches to be made by hon. Members, who, perhaps, never heard a word of the first discussion, and who, the moment after making their speeches, went away, and were seen no more until the division. Formerly, no hon. Member thought of speaking on an important question without listening to the debate upon it, or of making an attack on the conduct of any one without waiting to hear his reply. Now everything was changed in that respect. He believed that if hon. Members could only be convinced that these adjournments of debates only wasted time, and could be induced not to speak except when absolutely necessary, it would tend more to remedy the inconvenience now experienced than any compulsory rules such as were now proposed. He thought some alteration in the mode of managing the business was absolutely necessary, and he would not object to the proposition of the right hon. Secretary of State for a Committee, though he doubted whether it would he the means of introducing an efficacious remedy.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Notice taken that Forty Members were not present; House counted; and Forty Members not being present,

House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock.