HC Deb 04 May 1863 vol 170 cc1057-67
LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, it was desired by a great number of Members, that before proceeding to the consideration of the public business, he should bring under the notice of the House an event which had occurred on Friday. He was aware with what jealousy the House regarded the exercise of the privilege of moving the adjournment, in order to interpose between the House and the business of the day. But those whose opinion was of the greatest weight in the House had assured him that the matter was of sufficient gravity and importance to warrant him in taking such a course. What he desired to bring under the notice of the House was, that on Friday last the Orders of the House had been broken by Her Majesty's Government. The distinct pledges and promises which had been given to a too confiding Parliament when the change with respect to the business on Fridays had taken place in 1862 had been recklessly violated and infringed. The Speaker would remember that on Friday last, when he entered the House, he mounted the chair, and proceeded to count the hon. Members present. The right hon. Gentleman gave the Government the utmost possible latitude, and counted so slowly and deliberately that each count sounded like a minute-gun or a signal of distress; and, from the appearance of his face, it would appear that he was very much distressed at this instance of bad faith in the Government, and grieved when he found that the requisite forty were not present. He considered that the conduct of the Government on that occasion was a direct violation of the distinct pledge which the Government had given last year, when the Orders of the House underwent some alteration. Previously to the change of last year, the adjournment of the House till Monday had always been moved on Friday. If that Motion was not carried, the House had to meet on Saturday; and if no House could be got together on Saturday, an attempt had to be made to form one on Sunday. The consequence was, that the Government had always been obliged to keep a House on Friday till the Motion for Adjournment had been agreed to. This Motion for Adjournment gave hon. Members an opportunity of bringing their Motions, or what were technically termed "grievances," before the House. But when the change to which he had referred was made, it was arranged that Friday should be a Government night. Supply was to be put first upon the paper, and it was made an Order that "the House on its rising shall stand adjourned till Monday." He was not going to lay any stress upon such an expression as this; which, however, had been purposely introduced: such a ground would he too much like the quibble on which a legal mind might rest his case. A lawyer might argue that the House could not rise until it had been made, and had sat. He hoped, however, that he should be able to show that the provision recommended by a Committee of that House and sanctioned by the House itself (for affording to in-independent Members the same opportunity under the new system as they had enjoyed under the old of bringing forward matters in which their constituents were interested) had been totally and entirely set aside. In the Committee which had considered this matter there was a discussion whether it would not be more regular to let the debates on grievances take place on a Motion for Supply rather than on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House; it being agreed that such debates should in no way be curtailed or restricted: yet on the other hand it was urged, that if all those debates took place on the one question for going into Supply, considerable inconvenience to the public business might ensue from the very desultory character of the debate which would be the result. The Speaker proposed that the rule of "Progress" should apply to Committee of Supply as well as to other Committees; but the Committee, "from ear of unduly limiting the opportunities of debate, and of the discussion of grievances" by independent Members, refused to agree to that proposi- tion. In support of the rule to have those discussions on going into Supply, it was stated by the Committee, that if Supply was put on the paper, Members would have the same opportunity of discussing grievances that they formerly possessed in the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, and Ministers would have an interest in keeping a House. The words of the Report are as follows— On the other hand, it must be remembered that the statement and consideration of grievances before Supply are among the most ancient and important privileges of the Commons, and this opportunity of obtaining full explanation from the Ministers of the Crown is the surest and best. Before going into a Committee of Supply, the Ministers have an interest both in making a House and in keeping a House. The Resolution was therefore agreed to by the Committee, on the condition that on Fridays Supply should be the first Order of the Day throughout the Session. That condition was made in order to throw upon Government the onus of keeping a House. The recommendation of the Committee is given in the following terms— Section 17.—Your Committee think it therefore expedient to adopt the Standing Order recommended by the Committee of 1854, whereby the House, at its rising on Friday, without motion made, would stand adjourned to the Monday following, unless the House shall otherwise resolve; but on this condition, that Friday be a Government Order Day throughout the Session, and that a Motion for a Committee of Supply, or of Ways and Means, stand first among the Government Orders on that day. That is to say, this recommendation was made on condition that as full an opportunity for debating grievances should be given to independent Members as they formerly possessed; with this sole difference, that a greater regularity of form in the debates should be obtained. The Committee stated, that the effect of their recommendation would be that the House would be kept, for two reasons—1st. That this has always been the case; 2nd. That it would be the interest of Ministers to keep a House. The 32nd section of the Report is in these terms— An indirect effect also of this recommendation may be anticipated, It is remarkable, that since the year 1856, on no one occasion has the House not been made at four o'clock.… It may be conjectured that Ministers on Tuesdays, having little business of their own fixed for that day, are indifferent as to keeping a House. The contingent right to bring on Supply at a later hour of the evening would give to the Ministers an interest in keeping a House. The opportunity of the Motion for Adjournment had always been preferred by the House, before other days, because of the certainty that the Government would make and keep a House on that day. The Speaker himself took this view of the feeling of the House, as appears by Question 107— Have you formed any opinion as to the circumstances which induce Members to prefer having notices put on the paper for the Adjournment Motion on Friday to taking the ordinary course of giving notice?—I apprehend that the reason why Members take that course is, that they are quite certain to be able to have an opportunity of expressing their opinions on Friday. It followed, therefore, that every arrangement which did not interfere with the free discussion of grievances, which existed at that time, must possess the same character—namely, a certainty that the House would be made and kept; while, on the other hand, if such occurrences as that of Friday last were repeated, independent Members would be deprived of all opportunity of bringing forward the grievances of their constituents. When the noble Lord at the head of the Government, on the 7th of February 1861, moved the appointment of the Committee, he made use of these words— Undoubtedly, we ought to be very cautious in changes of this description.… We meet for the purpose of giving a full and ample consideration to all the matters that come before us, and we ought not to adopt any shortened forms of procedure that might prevent the full and ample discussion of the questions that are brought under the notice of the House. And when the noble Lord proposed the Resolutions of the Committee, on the 3rd of May 1861, he said— They were unwilling to recommend anything. …. which should tend to narrow that ample scope for discussion and debate which is so essentially necessary. He stated that the House of Commons was the mouthpiece and organ of grievances, &c. They studiously eschewed anything that would.… deprive Members of the opportunity they ought to possess for making the sentiments of any of their constituents known, Then he proceeded to show the advantage of the Friday's arrangements; namely, that— On Tuesdays the Government and their supporters have sometimes no gnat inducement to remain in the House; So that the Mover is rendered liable to the arithmetical test. Then with regard to Friday— It will be a security for private Members, whenever Committee of Supply is fixed, that those who are interested in carrying on the business of the Government will be in their places, and there will be less chance of private Members being defeated by the scantiness and thinness of the House. That this was the predominant feeling in the House is manifest from the fact, that a noble Lord behind him (Lord Hotham) had thought it necessary to raise a warning voice, on the same occasion, against the too sanguine expectations and too easy confidence of the House, and said— It was alleged, that Supply being at the top of the list, Government would keep a House; but no one could persuade him, that in the face of two or three hostile Motions, or even of one inconvenient Motion, the Government would keep a House…When observations were made about counting out, he would remind him that Mr. Canning held it to be the duty of Government to keep a House. On taking up the Notice List for Friday last, he found that the first Motion was "a hostile Motion,"—namely, the Motion of of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay), for considering the relative merits of Armstrong and Whilworth guns, and the effects of shot and shell on iron plates. Considering what had recently happened at Charleston, that was a question in which the Government must be supposed to take an interest, because of their pet fortification project. Perhaps the noble Viscount was afraid of the hon. Member for Sunderland disclosing the fact that the iron plates which had been sent out from this country to the Federals had all been previously tried by the Government here, and had been found utterly worthless; and, consequently, that the conflict had no real bearing on the question of Ships versus Forts. The next Motion was that of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) on the question of Turkey; and on that subject it was well known that the Government were very sensitive. "Oh Gregory! where was then thy swashing blow? Then there was the Motion of a gallant Colonel (Colonel Dunne) on the depressed condition of Ireland; and probably the Government would not have been well disposed to have the miseries of the Irish thrust on their attention, or to let it be disclosed that Ireland had been brought to such a condition under their administration. Be- fore 1860 the Government had but two Order days, Monday and Friday, and on Friday there was the Motion for Adjournment. So that independent Members had Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, together with the right to bring forward subjects in which they took an interest on the Friday's adjournment. Two years ago the Government had taken Thursdays from private Members; in 1862 they had changed the Motion for Adjournment to a Motion for going into Supply; and now in 1863 they got rid of private Members altogether by not making a House. There were plenty of Members outside at four o'clock on Friday; but, of course, a gentle pressure was put upon them to keep them out of the House. He could not help comparing this act with the system which was being carried out by the Ministers in the Prussian Parliament; while he himself was only imitating Professor Sybel, who, in that Parliament, had just carried a Resolution to compel the attendance of Members. In fact, there was a Resolution on the Journals of the House respecting the attendance of Members, which applied, of course, with double force to Members of the Government— January 25, 1709. "Resolved, That such Members as absent themselves without leave be reputed deserters to their trust and neglectors of the duty they owe to the House and the country. The noble Lord concluded by moving that the House do now adjourn.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

seconded the Motion. He trusted that the Government would not attempt to evade their responsibility for what had occurred by any subterfuge. It was no accident. There were thirty-seven Members, including the Speaker, at four o'clock; and if the official I organ of the Government, the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Brand), had been present, with his two satellites, they would have made a House. There was therefore evidently an intention on the part of the Government to evade some of the Motions on the paper, and he hoped they would point out which was the peccant one. The noble Lord (Viscount Pal-merston), when he proposed the change, dwelt very eloquently on the importance of giving the greatest possible opportunities to the House for expressing its opinions on every subject which might be brought forward; and the late Sir George Lewis distinctly stated that Government would put Supply down as the first Order, which would give private Members an opportunity of mating Motions and speeches. This was not an accident, for not only was the House not made by the Government, but a House was actually prevented from being made, for there were Members sufficient in the lobby to have made one.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

said, he thought it very desirable that there should be an understanding for the future what was the position of the Government with respect to Friday evenings. At four o'clock last Friday there was not a single Member of the Government in his place; and the Gentlemen who went by the name of "whips" were busy outside preventing Members from coming in. ["No, no!"] So at least he was assured by hon. Gentlemen who were in the lobby at the time. He had told his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory), who had a Motion on the paper, that he was astonished at his trusting to the Government to make a House for him. He himself, when his Motion on the affairs of Greece was coming on, had so little confidence in the Government, that he wrote to his friends, asking them to come down and make a House; and on that occasion, though he had once postponed his Motion to suit the convenience of the noble Lord, the whips actually tried to prevent Members from coming in to make a House. It was desirable to know whether the Government did not consider themselves bound, if not to keep, at least to make a House on Fridays, and he would therefore ask the noble Lord what his view on the subject was?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

It would be affectation in any Member of the Government, in referring to the House not being made, to say that he was as grieved and distressed as you, Sir, were represented to be; but I can sincerely say that I am sorry that the House was not made on Friday. The noble Lord (Lord R. Montagu) has alluded to several Motions down for that night, which he assumed that the Government were afraid or disinclined to meet; but I can assure him we very much regret that the House was nut enlightened by those conclusive speeches which we should have addressed to the House on the other side. The questions then to be discussed would, I am confident, have been settled by the preponderance of the arguments which we should have brought forward. It is said there was a promise made that on Fridays a House should be made and kept by the Government. There was an understanding that the Government would do what was usual for that purpose, and I can assure the House that it was purely accidental that a House was not made on Friday. There was no prevention on the part of the Government. It was stated by the noble Lord opposite that there were thirty-seven Members in the House and fifty outside. [Lord ROBERT MONTAGU: I did not mention any number.] Well, a great many, then, were outside. But I must say that there is a fellowship of duty in making up the number necessary to constitute a House. No doubt the Government ought to contribute their quota. And here, in passing, I beg the House to keep in mind the admission made by the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken that we are entitled on Friday to the remainder of the night after the miscellaneous discussions are over; because the other night, when we wished to go into Supply at nine o'clock on a Friday night, we were told that it was too late, and that Friday night was a private Members' night. [An Hon. MEMBER: It was half past eleven.] I claim the admission now made, and I hope we shall not have this objection repeated on another occasion. I repeat that there was no prevention last Friday, for there were Members enough in the lobby to have made a House. There is a fellowship of duty in this matter. Those hon. Gentlemen who have Motions to make, and their friends who wish to support them and to make speeches, ought to come down. Hon. Gentlemen ought to do like the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Baillie Cochrane)—get their friends to come down to make a House and keep it. Let me remind the House, that though we have been sitting now three months, this was the first occasion on which the House has failed to be made. There has been only one occasion, too, on which the House has been broken up on the arithmetical question of numbers. The House has only been counted out once, and that was at past one o'clock in the morning, when the hon. Member for the King's County being—what is unusual with him—more desirous of going to bed than to carry on business here, took notice that there were not forty Members present. I can only assure the House that we regret that any private Member should have been put to inconvenience by the failure to make a House. It was really no preconcerted scheme, and not due to any action on the part of my hon. Friends to prevent the twenty or thirty Members in the lobby from entering the House. I can, however, assure the House that the Government will endeavour to prevent the recurrence of such an event in future.

MR. DISRAELI

Sir, as I was a Member of the Committee on Public Business, and as I took a large share of the responsibility attached to those who recommended the change in question, I think it my duty to say that I for one deeply regret what occurred last Friday. This is not a question of a mere count-out—that is often regretted when it occurs—I am of opinion that a count-out ought to be regretted at all times. But this case is a violation of what I consider, and what I believe the House considers, to be a very solemn compact as to the management of the business of the House. Certainly my impression is, that both privately in Committee and afterwards publicly in debate there was an undertaking on the part of the Government that the House should be made on the Friday night. For myself, like the noble Lord the Member for Huntingdonshire (Lord R. Montagu), I was opposed to the change being made, and I saw no objection to the system by which the business on the Friday was then conducted. It was, I thought, a safety-valve that had acted very well. But the opinion of those to whom the consideration of the business of the House on Friday was referred being in favour of the change then proposed, which made the proceedings more regular, more methodical, and perhaps more logical—when their Report was made I bowed to it as well as the noble Lord opposite. But certainly it was then understood that the privileges of what are termed independent Members should not be trenched upon or placed in danger. It must be recollected, in the first place, that under the old system a House was secured on the Friday, and that was an advantage of which every Member was perfectly aware—an advantage which was prominently put forward in the discussion at the time by those who were opposed to the change, the argument being that they were asked to forego a positive advantage. It was therefore from no neglect on the part of the House, nor from hon. Members being unaware of the advantageous position which they occupied under the old system, that they gave up that advantage. They gave up the advantage from the general sentiment that it was for the furtherance—for the more regular and satisfactory conduct—of our business, and in deference to the strong recommendation of Her Majesty's Government. I understand from the noble Lord now that the clear undertaking on the part of the Government to make a House on the Friday evening is fully recognised, and I trust, therefore, that such a thing will not occur again. But, with regard to the circumstances of last Friday, the complaint is not, as the noble Lord stated, that there were thirty-seven Members in the House, and that hon. Members who were going to bring forward Motions ought to have influenced their Friends in a sufficient number to make a House. The thirty-seven Members who happened to be in the House on last Friday were, I believe, what are called independent Members. The complaint is that the Government were not in the House, but that they were in the lobby. Although I am very willing to put the interpretation on the whole affair which the noble Viscount has given it, nevertheless I think that the noble Lord the Member for Huntingdonshire has acted with great propriety in bringing forward the question. It is a question which concerns individually every Member of this House; and had it been allowed to pass unnoticed, it perhaps would have been drawn into a precedent, and might produce ultimately very serious consequences in reference to the invaluable privileges of Members.

MR. BENTINCK

said, that having taken the sense of the House upon the change when it was proposed two years ago, he might, perhaps, be allowed to say a word upon the subject. His noble Friend (Lord R. Montagu) complained of Her Majesty's Government. Now, it was not his (Mr. Bentinck's) province to defend Her Majesty's Government; but he did nut think that blame attached to them on this occasion, but rather to the House of Commons itself. When the discussion upon this question took place two years ago, he ventured to call attention to the effect of conducting business upon the plan proposed—a plan which had been urged, not only by the Government, but by the Gentlemen who usually occupied the front benches on each side of the House. He cautioned the House at that time as to what would be the result of the change in the mode of conducting the business of the House on Fridays; and he ventured to think that the circumstances to which his noble Friend referred showed that his (Mr. Bentinck's) warning had been well founded. He thought the House had only itself to blame when it relinquished its old privileges, and those privileges were now nearly extinct. He would ask the House to re-consider this question, and to decide whether the time had not arrived when they ought to revert to the old rules under which the business of the House was conducted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire had told them that he disapproved of the change; but if his (Mr. Bentinck's) memory served him right, the right hon. Gentleman supported it when it was debated in that House, and voted for it—he was therefore at a loss to know in what manner the right hon. Gentleman had disapproved of it. If the House would take the trouble to turn to the list of the division, they would find that the proposed alterations were supported by every Member on the two front benches. He ventured to suggest that the House ought to take the question into their own hands, and not allow their privileges to be curtailed in the way they had been.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.