ADJOURNMENT. (Hansard, 28 May 1861)

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
I have to move, Sir, that the House at its rising do adjourn until Thursday. I think it will be for the very general convenience of the House that it should adjourn over Wednesday; and it is quite unnecessary to go into any details of the reasons which induce me to make this Motion, because I think that the reasons must be patent to every hon. Member.

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, he did not rise for the purpose of offering any opposition 196 to the very popular proposal of the noble Lord; but when a Motion was made which would have the effect of taking away one of those days which were considered at the disposal of private Members, it appeared to him a very proper opportunity to call the attention of the House to the position of private Members in respect to the business of the House, and which had resulted from the recent alteration which had been made in the mode of conducting business. When that alteration was proposed by the noble Lord he ventured to offer some opposition to it, on the ground that its effect would be to take away a portion of the time which had hitherto been placed at the disposal of private Members. The noble Lord assured them that such would not be the case; and that so far from it, in his opinion, it would rather add to the time at their disposal, because from the arrangement that Supply was to be taken on Fridays after the private Members' business was disposed of, a House would be kept, so that private Members would be always able to ensure that day for the introduction of the various topics which they might wish to bring before the House. What had really been the effect of the change? On Tuesday, the 14th, the House was counted out at a quarter before seven. They might be told that that was in consequence of the very uninteresting nature of the business which private Members brought before the House. But what happened on the two following Fridays? On Friday the 17th, a day on which the noble Lord assured them that they would have more time at their disposal in consequence of the Government being interested in keeping a House to go on with Supply, the House was counted out at a quarter past eight. That was bad enough; but last Friday it was still worse, for when the Speaker came down to take the chair there were not forty Members present to make a House, and, consequently, an immediate adjournment took place to Monday, Was it possible to imagine a more complete refutation of the statement of the noble Lord, or a more forcible justification of the opposition which he (Mr. Bentinck) made to the Motion? The inconvenience which had resulted to private Members had been still greater on account of the frequent and urgent appeals which had been made to them by Members on the Treasury bench to give way on the ground of public convenience. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had on a recent occasion entreated the House to go on 197 with the business on the ground that great inconvenience would result to the public if the Budget Resolutions were not proceeded with. Now he (Mr. Bentinck) had always been under the impression that private Members gave way on the implied, if not expressed understanding that the Government should give its assistance in getting a House when private Members had Motions, so that the public time might be economised. To their surprise, however, so far from pressing on the public business, the Government appeared to have so much time at its disposal, or the public business was of such little importance, that it was of no consequence whether it was terminated a week sooner or later, and on the very subject with respect to which they were called upon to come to a decision some weeks ago, on the ground that it was of the utmost importance to have it settled, the Government had recently proposed a further adjournment of the debate. That rendered the position of private Members still more hopeless than it was before. They had been deprived of the privileges they had possessed up to the period of the alteration, and it was quite clear that they could not expect any assistance from the Government in getting that time which it was proposed to reserve to them by the arrangement then made. After hearing so much of the "independence" of the House, he was surprised that they should have so tamely submitted to the deprivation of one of their greatest privileges by an arrangement between the two front benches—namely, the Ministerial and the front Opposition bench. He did not blame those benches. It was natural enough that the leaders on both sides—those who were in office and those who expected to be in office—should do all they could to put a stop to the operations of private Members altogether, and he would do them the justice of saying they had always done their best to carry out that principle. But he did blame that want of independence on the part of the House in general which allowed it to be deprived of its rights and privileges. He had cited pretty good proof of how the new arrangement was likely to work, and if no more influential Member took up the subject he should attempt to induce the House to reverse the injudicious decision to which it had lately come.

§ MB. DISRAELI
Sir, I feel it my duty to say, having been one of those who were responsible for the change in the 198 course of public business on Fridays, that I certainly did so on the clear understanding that the Government would feel it his duty to secure a House on that day. On some occasions, no doubt, a "No House" may be beyond the control of the Government, but this does not seem to have been the case on Friday, for I am informed that when the adjournment was declared only two Members of the Administration were present. Now, there ought to be a clear understanding on this subject, and the noble Lord should, I think, give us an assurance that the Government will consider it their duty always to make a House on a Friday. When, indeed, I recall the language of the Standing Order on the subject, I very much doubt whether, strictly speaking, the House ought not to have met last Saturday. The Standing Order, if I recollect it, says that the House after its meeting on Friday shall, without the Motion formerly made, adjourn at its rising until the Monday; but the Standing Order, I think, cannot have applied to the case of last Friday, because the House did not really meet them at all. If that be so our proceedings were altogether irregular, and the Speaker ought to have resumed his seat, and, if possible, to have formed a House on Saturday. All this shows that our proceedings in reference to the recent change in the mode of conducting our business, are of a very crude character, and it will be very desirable, therefore, to arrive before long at some general conclusion which will be more satisfactory to the House. At all events, I trust the noble Lord will assure us that he will consider it one of the duties of the Government always to make a House on a Friday, and to give us those advantages which certainly on the part of the Government were undertaken to be secured to us.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
I can assure hon. Members that the Government themselves regret that no House was made on Friday last, because we ourselves had business which we should have liked to bring forward. That "No House" was the result of accidental circumstances, but, undoubtedly, it would be the desire of the Government to secure, if possible, the making of a House on Friday. As to the other instances mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, I can only say that, if private Members bring forward questions of interest, other private Members will probably attend and listen to them, but if they do not think it worth while to do so, it is not 199 in the power of the Government to make them. While it may be the duty of the Government to make the House on Fridays, keeping the House must depend on private Members rather than upon the Government.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, he would remind the noble Lord, that by an old Parliamentary tradition there were certain Members whose duty it was both to make a House and to keep a House.