RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 29 May 1868)

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
said, he rose to call attention to Rule 164 of "The Rules, Orders, and Forms of Proceedings of the House of Commons"—namely, "No Member may allude to any Debate in the Other House of Parliament," and to it; frequent infraction or evasion, and to move that it be rescinded. These Rules were often treated like a net which was strong enough to stop the little fishes, but which the great fishes broke through whenever it so pleased them. Now he could not understand the use of Rules that were not to be uniform in their operation. All Members of that House were presumed to be on a footing of perfect equality. They recognized no social rank as giving any preponderance in the estimation of the House; a noble Lord had no greater weight than his talents and character might give him in their debates, and no advantage over another person who was a Commoner. A Minister was no more than a Member. He was, therefore, not ready to give one Member impunity in infringing this law; an impunity not extended to others, simply because he had occupied the position of a Minister in this House. He had noticed that when anything had occurred in the other House of Parliament, which excited interest in this House, hon. Members who had been in office previously, and who expected to be in Office again, were habitually accustomed to disregard the Rule in question, and to refer to debates in the other House of Parliament, and even to give the speakers' names, repeating the ipsissima verba of their speeches, without even going through the formality of apologizing or asking permission before doing so. He was always desirous of avoiding direct personal reference to Members of the House, and therefore he would not mention the particular occasion to which he referred; but it must be within the recollection of the House that, on a recent occasion, the Rule to which he alluded was completely broken through. But minor Members were not allowed to infringe the Rule without being called to Order. Though personally not in favour of restricting Parliamentary freedom, he thought that if the Rule were not to be observed in high quarters, it would be better to abrogate it entirely. There was another Rule of the same kind, which had been applied to an hon. Member only a few 1078 minutes ago. It was of precisely the same character as the other, and it was for the credit of the House that, if applied to one, it should be applied to all. He held that Members of that House were completely on a par one with another, though one might excel his fellows in some qualifications for public distinction, just as the horses which ran for the Derby two days ago were all blood horses, almost exactly equal in breed and training, though one might come in a head or u neck in front of another at the end of the race. He did not put his own judgment against the experience of centuries which had established the Rule, but he desired that his: Motion should be proposed from the Chair pro formâ, so that the subject might be discussed.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member says that he desires to put this Motion pro formâ; but the fact is that there is no such Rule in existence, in a shape that it can be formally rescinded. Certain Rules are to be found in a book which defines what the observances of Parliament are; but they are not in the nature of Standing Orders. There is no Standing Order dealing with this subject, or anything that can be rescinded in the manner suggested by the hon. Member. I will, however, put his Motion if he desires it.

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
said, he would ask Mr. Speaker, as a Question of Order, whether he could not enforce these Rules, and whether he would not enforce Rule 164 against any private Member; and also whether it was not a fact that Rule 160 had that very evening been enforced in the case of a private Member?

§ MR. SPEAKER
Certainly, if any hon. Member infringed Rule 164, which, as I said, is an account of the practice of Parliament, I should feel it my duty to put that Rule in force; and I trust that I should do so with impartiality in the case of any hon. Member who transgresses it, But the matter can be very easily arranged. If 1079 the hon. Member desires the law of Parliament should be laid down that allusions to debates in the other House of Parliament should be permitted, it would be more proper for him to put his Motion in that shape than in the form in which it stands on the Paper.

MR. GLADSTONE
I understood the hon. Gentleman—though what has fallen from him is not very clear—to cast some censure upon me for having made allusion to debates in the House of Lords.

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
I do not presume to censure the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. GLADSTONE
Well, I do not mean to complain of the hon. Gentleman's censures or observations whichever he meant. What I wish to say is this, that it appears to me that reference to debates in the House of Lords is, as a general rule, very improper and inexpedient; but cases may occur in which it would not only not be improper and inexpedient, but in which it would enter into the obligations of Members of Parliament to do so. I can say for myself that I have been extremely rigid in abstaining from all references to the House of Lords in any matter of general controversy. I think I may say that during my public life, extending now over thirty-six years, I do not remember to have referred to anything said in the House of Lords except on two occasions, and both of these were in the present year. They were cases which did not refer to myself, but they were cases where the position of the House of Commons was involved. It appears to me that in cases where a Member of the House of Commons thinks, whether rightly or wrongly, that a declaration made by a Minister in the House of Lords is material to the position of the House of Commons, it is, I do not say his duty to refer to that declaration as having been made in the House of Lords, but it is his duty to get at that declaration in any manner he can, and make it part of the subject-matter of discussion in this House. So again, if a Member thinks, whether rightly or wrongly, but in good faith, that remarks have been made in the House of Lords disparaging to this House, he would be fulfilling his duty, rather than doing a thing calling for any apology, in referring to them. I do not conceive that any reference ought to be made to the House of Lords except in those two cases; but I must', add that I have heard many speeches in the House of Lords which consisted simply 1080 of replies to the arguments of Members of this House. With respect to the rescinding of this Rule Her Majesty's Government will, no doubt, have their own opinion upon that; but I conceive this Rule, like every other Rule of the House, must be applied with discretion. There is no rule more rigidly observed amongst us, than that no Member should speak more than once; but it constantly happens—sometimesin the case of a Minister, sometimes in the case of a Member who has been attacked—that the House by a just instinct relaxes the rule in his favour on grounds of public convenience, and he is not only allowed, but encouraged, to infringe the rule. These are customs which are a good deal more honoured in the observance than in the breach in ordinary circumstances; but peculiar circumstances will arise from time to time, and the good sense of the House may be trusted to discern the cases in which it is better to allow the custom to be broken through. But now, with regard to the hon. Gentleman, I wish to return his animadversions upon himself for one word which he used in the course of his observations. He spoke as if you, Sir, only enforced this Rule against private Members. I am not sure that I know the definition of a private Member; but if there be a definition strictly applicable to that word, it includes all persons, except Mr. Speaker himself and the Gentlemen who are Officers under the Crown. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will admit that it is impossible to apply these Rules in a more equal or impartial manner than is now done in the conduct of Public Business and the regulation of our proceedings.

§ MR. DISRAELI
said, he hoped the House would always support that Rule; because he thought it prevented controversies and recriminations between the two Houses, while it had a tendency to promote mutual courtesy and softened the manners of a popular assembly, which required some restriction of that kind. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not sanction the criticism of the hon. Member nor the object to which it would lead. As to any observation which might seem to impugn the impartiality of Mr. Speaker, he could only say, speaking for those who sat on that (the Ministerial) side, that there existed only one feeling—that Mr. Speaker exercised his functions with an impartial discrimination towards both sides of the House.

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
disclaimed 1081 any intention to impugn the Speaker's impartiality, and said he would withdraw his Motion.