HC Deb 16 May 1861 vol 162 cc2095-100
MR. MACEVOY

Sir, in reference to a matter which I have to bring before the House affecting the privileges of hon. Members, I trust I may claim its attention for a very few moments. At the outset, I may be permitted to say that I feel there is no Member of this House who is readier than I am to abide by the rules which regulate the conduct of the business of this House. I will state very shortly the circumstances of the case which I desire to bring under the notice of the House. Yesterday, there being a not very lively debate at the time going on in this House, and knowing that there was a Select Committee sitting upstairs upon the subject of births, deaths, and marriages, a matter with regard to which we take a considerable interest in Ireland, I thought I could not do better than see what that Committee was doing. I had scarcely entered the Committee room when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell), who, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, acted as Chairman of the Committee, beckoned to me to approach, which I at once did, and he then informed me that my presence there was out of order. I replied that I was not out of order, and he repeated that I was out of order, when I again told him I was not out of order. Having intimated that opinion to him, I at once retired. I had, however, some time ago made myself acquainted with the rights enjoyed by hon. Members to attend Committees, and it was in consequence of the certainty which I felt with regard to my opinion being the right one, that I in such a deliberate and cool manner told the hon. Member that he must be under a misapprehension. I believe it is the intention of the hon. Gentleman to defend himself after having done wrong in calling me to order by referring to what has occurred in a Committee not a great number of days ago when, as I understand, the hon. Gentleman the Member for New Ross (Mr. Tottenham) went into a Committee which was sitting on fairs and markets, and having asked whether there was any objection to his being present, he was told that although the Committee would be excessively glad glad to see him on all occasions, yet it was contrary to the rule of the House for him to remain. I mention this case with the view to justify myself in the course I now take, and as showing that it is not a matter which alone affects myself. I will, with the permission of the House, read to it the rules by which we are to be guided in this particular matter; and I will merely say that there have been four times, within the last twelve years, decisions which go to justify the course that I was endeavouring to pursue, and which the hon. Gentleman, in the exercise of an authority which was vested in him for a short time, thought himself justified in refusing. In the year] 849 a clear decision was given by the late Speaker upon this question. I think the House will forgive me if I read what was the question put, because, then, it will be able clearly to understand the decision. Let me say, however, before reading it, what makes the case of the hon. Gentleman very much worse, that I understand a witness was being examined at the time when he thought it his duty to tell me I was out of order. That is an important feature. The case is this— Mr. Bernal Osborne wished to put a question as to the privileges of the House. He did not know what the custom might he as to Committees of the House, but he always understood that these Committees were open to the attendance of Members of Parliament, except during the time of division. There was a Committee, the Irish Poor Law Committee, in which many Members took a strong interest, and he understood that that Committee had come to a resolution to prevent the attendance of all Members of Parliament. This not being a Secret Committee, he asked whether such a course of proceeding was in conformity with the rules of Parliament. The Speaker—your predecessor, Sir—immediately answered the question as follows:— Mr. Speaker: According to the rules of the House every hon. Member is privileged to attend in a Committee unless the Committee is Secret. The usual practice has been that during the deliberations of the Committee other hon. Members have left the room. There have been instances where hon. Members would not leave the room. That is not my case. And where on the application of the Committee the House granted a power to exclude hon. Members. Mr. B. Osborne: Am I to understand that they cannot turn me out of the room? Mr. Speaker: The Committee have no power to exclude the hon. Member unless they have a definite power from the House." [8 Mansard, cii. 1182-3.] Now, I made no objection whatever to go out, but I do very strongly object to being told that I am out of order by the hon. Gentleman. In bringing the matter forward I do not wish at all to make any attack on the hon. Gentleman personally. I am perfectly well aware that it was nothing more than his entire and utter ignorance of the duties of Chairman which had the effect of making him do that which had the appearance of being a discourteous act. I will now read a decision which is very much more important, because, Sir, it was your decision. It was given on the 22nd of June, 1857, in answer to ft question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Roscommon (Colonel French), who is very jealous of the privileges of Members of this House, and who has taken on all occasions a great interest in such questions as this. On that occasion the Speaker after quoting the decision of 1849 then proceeded— The rule, therefore, has been very distinctly laid down—and it was assented to by the House—that hon. Members are privileged to attend in Committees. Indeed, there does not appear to have been any difference of opinion between hon. Members and the Members of the Committee upon this subject. The hon. Member does not ask me a question as to an exercise of discertion on cither side, and I, therefore, thick it fitting to confine myself to announcing what is the rule of the House." [3 Hansard, cxlvi. 139.] I am not aware that the decision has been altered since 1857, as to the power of any particular Member to attend any Committee whatever if he thinks it his duty to do so. Of course, I am as ready as any Member of the House to retire on the slightest intimation of a wish on the part of the Committee that they should deliberate or even examine witnesses without the presence of other persons. I should be the last man in the world to resist that. I hope I have made the case sufficiently clear upon this point, and also that, in bringing it forward, I do not mean any personal want of courtesy to the hon. Gentleman. I merely desire to express a wish that for the future, before calling a Member of the House to order, who is, I believe, as old a Member of the House as himself, though perhaps not so old—I mean in years—he will give him the opportunity of retiring in a more courteous manner than by calling him to order.

MR. BAGWELL

Sir, if I have been guilty of any want of courtesy I regret it. But the hon. Gentleman has brought this matter forward without having had the common courtesy to give me any notice of it; and it is by the merest chance that I am down at the House.

MR. MACEVOY

Allow me to say that I did myself write a letter to the hon. Gentleman. The occurrence took place yesterday, and this afternoon I wrote a letter to him, and, being afraid such a suggestion would be made, I left it at the office of the hon. Gentleman myself.

MR. BAGWELL

I do not suppose that a junior Lord of the Treasury is bound to live in his office any more than other people. However, I will merely state the circumstances of the case as they arose. Two or three days ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland was in the chair in the Fairs and Markets (Ireland) Committee, when the hon. Member for New Ross came in, and he was told that it was not usual for strangers to be in the room when the Committee were in deliberation. The hon. Gentleman then spoke to my right hon. Friend, and left the room. Yesterday my right hon. Friend was obliged to attend Court, and during his absence I took the chair. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. MacEvoy) came into the room and sat down at its far end. I beckoned to him and told him that it was contrary to rule that he should be there when the Committe was in deliberation, and I thought that was the rule at the time. The hon. Gentleman has read me a lesson, and I will read him one, which I hope he will take in the same friendly spirit as I have taken the one he has vouchsafed to me. First of all, I ought to mention that the Committee were in deliberation, and were not examining a witness. Dr. Farr was in the Committee room giving advice to Members, but we were not taking any evidence. In May's work on "Parliamentary Privilege," at page 367, he says— Members of the House of Commons have claimed the right of being present as well during the deliberations of a Committee as while witnesses are examined; and although if requested to retire they would rarely make any objection; and on the grounds of constant practice and courtesy to the Committee, they ought immediately to retire when the Committee are about to deliberate; yet it does not appear that the Committee, in case of their refusal, would have any power to order them to withdraw. Had I had that before me I should have showed it to the hon. Gentleman and left him to act as he pleased. But the hon. Gentleman said, "You are wrong;" simply that. Now, if ever I have the honour of sitting again as locum tenens for my right hon. Friend, and the hon. Gentleman comes in, I shall merely show him that rule without any observation, and leave the hon. Gentleman to take his own course. I can only assure the House, and, I am sure, no Gentleman in the House who is acquainted with me will ever suppose that I should be guilty of any discourtesy to any hon. Member. With these few words I will merely say that I am exceedingly sorry such a thing has taken place.

LORD NAAS

said, there was not the slightest discourtesy on the part of the hon. Member for Cloumel. The Com- mittee were at the time engaged in rather an irregular proceeding, and the rule in question did not apply. Dr. Farr was requested to attend the Committee to give his advice upon the registration of births in Ireland, and he (Lord Naas) suggested that he should be treated as a witness, and his evidence then taken down. The Committee, however, ruled otherwise; but they were for all political purposes engaged, in examining witnesses. He did not think that any of the Members were aware at the time that the hon. Member for Meath was requested to leave the room. He supposed the mistake arose in the way he had said. The Committee at the time was certainly not engaged in an act of deliberation, but in examining witnesses. He thought it right to express his opinion that the rule quoted by the hon. Member for Clonmel did not apply,

MR. MAGUIRE

said, he was a Member of the Committee, but had not been aware of the request for the hon. Member to withdraw.