§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he desired to call the attention of the House to a question of order and privilege, as regarded the right which hon. Members could claim to particular seats in the House. By Standing Order 85 any Member present in the House at prayers was entitled to secure a place by affixing his name to a seat, and by Standing Order 86, which was made on the 6th of April, 1835, no Member's name might be affixed to any seat in the House before the hour of prayer. Notwithstanding the latter order a practice had sprung up by which Members attempted to secure places by 161 leaving their cards upon the seats, trusting that the courtesy of other Members would prevent their being occupied. That arrangement having been declared irregular by the highest authority in that House, it was suggested that a place might be secured by the hat of a Member being left on the seat before the hour of prayer, and that modification of the previous arrangement was approved by the House, as it was presumed that when a Member left his hat on a seat he was engaged in the performance of duties within the precincts of the House. He had applied to the Serjeant-at-Arms to know whether the placing of a hat in a particular seat was a sufficient presumption of the owner being in the precincts of the House; and finding that it was, he had always conformed himself to that arrangement, and when he found a seat vacant he had placed his hat on it. For doing so, with regard to a particular seat, he had been favoured with strong objurgations on the part of an hon. Friend beside him (Sir Henry Edwards), who had used expressions towards him which he certainly would not repeat to the House, and the energy of which was more remarkable than its courtesy. Having had a not very agreeable conversation with his hon. Friend on Tuesday last, he came down to-day at two o'clock to see what had occurred, and he found that a card had been laid upon that particular seat. He should, no doubt, have been justified in removing it; but he thought that if he did so he might be accused of discourtesy, and it would be better to mention the circumstance to the House. He considered that the Member who affixed his card to a seat at two o'clock in the day was not acting according to the rules of the House, and that any Member was entitled to deal with such seat as if no such card were there. It was no doubt a matter of great delicacy for private Members to interfere in a matter of this kind, and it certainly required the intervention of the Speaker's authority to settle the question. Disagreeable disputes might arise, and he was not desirous either of making use of warm language or having it used towards himself. At the same time, such language had been used towards him on several occasions, that he should be glad to be relieved of the difficulty by a declaration from the Chair as to what course a Member should take who found the privilege of retaining a seat irregularly 162 asserted by the placing of a card on it in the manner described. There were certain private Members, such as ex-Cabinet Ministers and other Members distinguished for their services or Parliamentary reputations, who were permitted by the courtesy of the House to occupy the same seats; but he was not prepared to admit the superiority of any ordinary Member over another with regard to the occupation of any particular seat.
SIR HENRY EDWARDSsaid, that as the question had been brought before the House, he would say at once that he was the Member alluded to; but he distinctly denied having ever claimed any exclusive right in the seat he occupied in the House. As a matter of courtesy it was always understood that the privilege was given to Members who were present at prayers to occupy the seat they then occupied for the night, and it had been customary for them to affix their cards to show that they were present and intended to take their seats. Nine times out of ten he was present at prayers, and recently he had found that it was necessary, if he was to have a seat at all—for he did not like to take the seat of other Members—to come down to the House half an hour or an hour before the sitting, and write his letters there instead of writing them at home. He saw Members all round him, none of whom had had a seat in the House so long as he had, sitting in the same places night after night, and he thought that it was very much for their own convenience and the convenience of the House that they should do so, and so long as he had the honour of a seat on that side he should always endeavour to obtain the one he now occupied. Any remarks that had passed between his hon. Friend and himself were best known to his hon. Friend, and he should not think it necessary to apply to the Speaker with respect to anything that might have taken place when he was not in the Chair. If any un-Parliamentary language was used when he was in the Chair he should ask for an explanation from the hon. Gentleman previous to appealing to the Speaker. There was, however, no grievance of that kind, for he appealed to his hon. Friends around him, whether, from first to last, he had said anything discourteous to the hon. Member. The fact was that the hon. Gentleman had, on many occasions, annoyed those who sat beside him by continually cheering the opposite party, while he still remained on those Benches. 163 Many other hon. Members had remarked the fact, and day after day he had annoyed them so much that they would all be very glad to see him leave his place and go over to the other side of the House. The hon. Gentleman had made a great deal of the matter, but he (Sir Henry Edwards) hoped that he had done nothing wrong in occupying the seat he then had.
ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEsaid, that on a previous occasion he had to complain of another Member taking his seat, and it was a very painful thing to him to have to do so, because it happened to be one of his oldest Friends. On that occasion he had left his hat on the seat while attending a Select Committee, and it had been removed. The Speaker then kindly expressed a hope that the matter would be amicably settled, and it was so; but this was a question really worthy of the attention of the hon. Gentleman in the Chair. It must be patent to every one that as Committees could not adjourn until the Speaker was announced to be at prayers, those Members who were performing important public duties could not possibly be present at prayers, and it would be very unfair that Members who had not been so engaged should have the privilege of taking their seats. Last Session he was informed that many hon. Gentlemen actually sent their butlers to place papers and documents on particular seats at an early hour in the day in order to secure them for the evening. To be sure, a walk on a fine summer's day would not do any harm to that class of gentlemen; but that practice had been obviated, and now unless a hat was left as well, no hon. Member could claim the seat. But it was not likely that hon. Members would like to be exposed to all the cold drafts of the corridors and the Committee rooms without their hats, and many hon. Gentlemen were thus prevented from compliance with the rule of the House. He therefore thought the matter should be seriously considered by the Speaker in the recess, and that some more practicable rule should be issued by him on the subject.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. and gallant Admiral who has just spoken goes a little beyond the point which has been raised when he suggests that some new rule should be laid down with reference to this subject, and I cannot enter into that branch of the subject at all, because it is for the House itself to frame rules for its guidance. Neither do I think it would be 164 right for me to enter into the question, with regard to Members being entitled to express their approbation or disapprobation of particular speeches from particular seats in the House. Upon those points, therefore, I do not propose to give any judgment. The matter, therefore, as I understand it, is narrowed to the single point whether or not a card placed upon a seat before prayers will give a claim or right to that seat for the remainder of the evening. The point has been very distinctly decided, not by myself, but by this House. The House has laid down the rule that no card placed upon a seat can command or secure that seat in the absence of the hon. Member placing it there. About a year ago it was observed that hon. Members who came down here early in the morning to attend to their duties were placed at a disadvantage, because, being confined to the Committee rooms, they could not come into the House until their seats had been secured by others. Under these circumstances a suggestion was made that any Member having come down to the House in the morning to discharge the duty of attending a Committee, who should think fit to place his hat upon a seat as an indication of his personal attendance in the performance of his duties, should be entitled to retain the seat as though he were personally present in the House. As far as I have made inquiries, that arrangement has been considered satisfactory and reasonable. The only question, however, now before the House is whether, if an hon. Member affixes his card to a seat before prayers, he is entitled to retain that seat. The House has distinctly declared such not to be the case. The Serjeant-at-Arms has directions to remove all gloves and cards placed upon the seats before prayers, and I have not the slightest doubt that if an appeal be made to the Serjeant-at-Arms he will remove any which may be improperly placed at the back of a seat with a view of securing it for the night.
MR. BRIGHTI suppose that the difficulty to which the hon. Member has called our attention arises from the limited size of the House. I venture to say there is no other country in the world where there is a legislative Assemby the arrangements of which are so inconvenient and so insufficient for the hon. Members of it as is the case with the British House of Commons. I understand that the House will not seat within at least 150 of 165 the persons who are Members of it. [An hon. MEMBER: It only seats 400.] An hon. Member near me says that the House will not seat more than 400—and when those are sitting it is almost impossible to hear one-half of the speeches which are made. Therefore, I think this House, and everything connected with it, is an utter disgrace. I use the word House in its general sense, and not as applied to hon. Members; and, speaking of the building, I say that the House itself, with regard to the accommodation which it affords, is a disgrace to the civilization, as it is to the architecture, of our time—and I hope the facts I have stated will be borne in mind if anybody proposes to add to the numbers in this House.