OBSERVATIONS. (Hansard, 16 March 1860)

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE

said, his excuse for troubling the House with a few obser- 763 vations must be that of all the speakers that addressed them, he should be the only one that made any remarks upon the Question really before the House—namely, the adjournment till Monday. There was a celebrated speech that they had all heard in their youth, of which these proceedings on a Friday evening always strongly reminded him. It began—Quousque tandem abutere patientia nostra? These conversations of two or three hours on every conceivable subject, forced the phrase irresistibly upon him. In allowing them they were guilty of the grossest abuse of the forms of the House; they were really neglecting the business of the country, and in ninety-nine out of every hundred of the questions that were thus raised, they were needlessly wasting the public time. The Standing Orders were distinct and explicit. They provided that— Unless the House should otherwise direct, all Orders of the Day set down for Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, shall be disposed of before the House proceeded with any Motion of which notice shall have been given. But by the practice which had grown up they had virtually repealed that Standing Order so far as Fridays were concerned, because Notices were taken before they could proceed to the Orders of the Day. He had taken the trouble, as he sat wistfully looking at the clock, to note down the length of time which each of the discussions they had just heard had occupied. They began with the hon. Member for Finsbury, who took them into Kent, and for ten minutes occupied the House with observations on the subject of coroners — a matter which could hardly be of so much urgency as to require the immediate interference of Parliament. Then he was sorry to say that a Scotch Member spoke next. Scotch Members did not generally offend in this way as much as the representatives of any other parts of the United Kingdom; but to-night a Scotch Member had erred grievously against the forms of the House, and for 25 minutes he was discussing the claims of the Nabobs of the Carnatic, under the pretence of asking the Secretary for India whether he should have any objection to lay papers on the table. There was, in fact, another very objectionable practice growing up—of which they had had two examples that night—the practice of putting on the paper notice that on the Motion of the Adjournment of the House, they would ask the Minister of a Department whether he was prepared to 764 lay certain papers on the table, and then making long speeches instead of reserving them for actual Motions for the production of the papers. In that manner speeches had been made that night on the Carnatic and on Savoy. Hon. Gentlemen had brought on discussions without giving any notice of them beyond a notice that they would each ask a simple question; and he trusted that to this practice the House would not give its sanction. Then for ten minutes the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham detained them with the Royal College at Sandhurst. Next came three or four minor Indian subjects. The question of the Indian Museum occupied the House for four or five minutes; and then extension of trade and intercourse with Central India took up another five minutes. The question about the army of India occupied another five minutes. Next came, as usual, an Irish debate, which occupied forty-five minutes, the subject being the removal of the Irish poor. No more important question affecting the comfort and welfare of masses of the community could be brought forward than the laws relating to the settlement and removal of the poor; but he (Mr. Bouverie) must protest against the idea of raising it in this incidental manner, which precluded those Members, who respected the forms of the House (which he always endeavoured to do), from expressing opinions which they might have come to after long and serious reflection upon the subject. Then came the hon. Member for Pontefract, who must forgive him for thinking that he was a great sinner in this respect. The hon. Gentleman consumed fifteen minutes on a point with which he (Mr. Bouverie) must say the House had properly nothing to do—he attempted to force the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a sum of money, which the right hon. Gentleman, having a due regard to the public purse, thought it his duty to refuse. Next the hon. Member for Launceston carried them across the Atlantic, and for ten minutes discoursed on the French fortifications on the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, and on our rights under existing treaties. That was another very important subject; but he submitted that it ought to have been brought on by a formal notice, and then there might have been a proper debate upon it. Lastly, they had had a discussion of half an hour upon the all-important subject of Savoy, respecting which they bad just heard a most interesting statement from the noble Lord the Se- 765 cretary for Foreign Affairs. That statement was one that it was very desirable the House should be in possession of; the facts bore upon a subject which was agitating the mind of all Europe; but he must still contend that the time which had been chosen for communicating these facts was not a fitting occasion. The House had been exhausted by the conversations which had already taken place, and instead of a full House, and the Minister making his statement at five o'clock, there were hardly fifty members in the House. Hon, Gentlemen had gone home to dine (and he did not wonder at it); and they would be surprised when they came back at the end of two hours to learn what an important announcement had been made in this incidental manner by the Secretary of State. The more he saw of this practice the more he deprecated its continuance, and the more he was satisfied that it was damaging to the reputation of the House as a place of business. The only thing he could compare it to was a part of Mr. Albert Smith's performance at the Egyptian Hall. There was a song which Mr. Smith sung, and in which he introduced every topic of the day in rapid succession. This appeared to be the style of thing to which the House was gradually tending. The forms of the House would not permit him to repeat the Motion which he had made a short time ago, and which would have saved the House from these irregularities; but he would endeavour to do the next best thing in his power—he would give notice of his intention to move that this Motion for adjournment should be made on Thursday instead of on Friday. If hon. Members then chose to infringe upon their own privileges, and to make speeches on a Motion of adjournment, instead of taking their chance for precedence in the ballot for notices of Motion, it would be their own fault; and the business of the country would not at any rate be delayed four or five hours, Friday after Friday, in the way it was now.