OBSERVATION. (Hansard, 27 March 1871)

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
rose to call attention to the postponement of the sittings of the Committee on Business of the House, and to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Committee was to sit on Tuesday next. The hon. Member said he was anxious to make a few observations on this subject, believing that it was one involving the rights and privileges of the Members generally. Well, the simple facts connected with his inquiry were these—The Committee in question sat for the last time on Tuesday, the 14th March; it was then adjourned until Tuesday, the 21st March; but it having been subsequently found that that day was an inconvenient one for several of its Members, it was further postponed until Friday last, the 24th. That day having been also objected to as being inconvenient to the Members, it was agreed upon by the Committee itself to postpone its next deliberation to Friday 686 next, the 31st instant. It appeared, however, that in the course of Friday evening last, the 24th, a circumstance took place which he believed was unparalleled in the annals of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer having, on the evening in question, had a private conversation with one or two Members behind the Speaker's Chair, and communicated with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) fixed the next meeting of the Committee on the Business of the House, not for Friday next, as it was previously arranged, but for to-morrow (Tuesday)—thus taking it on himself to change the day of such meeting. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), happening to be in the House late on Friday evening, had received early intimation of this change, but he believed that most of the other Members of the Committee did not receive notice of it until last Saturday afternoon. Apart from these considerations he would urge two objections to this course of proceeding. Now, the Chairman, as he contended, had no right, power, or authority to fix a day of meeting in this way, and in this he was supported by a text writer, Sir Erskine May, who, in his Usages and Laws of Parliament, after stating that it was sometimes permitted, added that the practice being irregular "could only be resorted to for the convenience of Members, and with their general concurrence." Neither of these conditions had been complied with. But although a Member might postpone a day for which he had given Notice of Motion, he could not, according to the established practice, appoint it for a day earlier than that which he had already fixed. Now, to-morrow, would be inconvenient to other Members of the Committee; and as it was known that attacks were to be made on the rights and privileges of Members, it was of importance that the convenience of independent Members should be consulted. He would suggest a further consideration in respect to this matter. The Committee in question was one of 23 Members, who, from the nature of the inquiry entrusted to them, would probably have to frame new rules regarding the Business of the House. He must enter his emphatic protest against any Resolution which the Committee might come to if they met to-morrow (Tuesday). And he begged, in 687 conclusion, to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was intended that the Committee should meet on that day?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
hoped the House would not be led astray by the eloquence of the hon. Gentleman opposite, for, if he was right in his argument, he had clearly demonstrated that the Committee never could meet again. According to the hon. Gentleman, the Committee not having met on the day it adjourned to, there was an end of it. It was matter of common sense that, whenever necessity arose, the Chairman of a Committee, having conferred with all the Members whose opinions he was able to learn, should have the power of doing what was for the general convenience. It was at the request of Members of the Committee, and, certainly, as he understood, for the general convenience, that Tuesday had been appointed for the meeting of the Committee. He hoped his hon. Friend would not raise such dreadful legal difficulties as to prevent them from proceeding on that day.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
objected, not so much to the naming of a day by the Chairman, as to the alteration of the day after once it had been appointed, for the convenience of individual Members. Some discretionary power might well be vested in the Chairman, but it ought to be a continuing power, not one that went backwards and forwards to suit the convenience of particular Members.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
denied that his right hon. Friend was in the least degree responsible for the meeting upon Tuesday. But it so happened that several Members of the Public Business Committee were also Members of the Westmeath Committee. And as there were witnesses connected with the administration of justice, whose detention in London while waiting to be examined before the Westmeath Committee might cause public inconvenience, it was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli)—in which suggestion he entirely concurred—that the Westmeath Committee should, if possible, sit on the following day and take the evidence of those witnesses. It was accordingly arranged that the Chairman of the Westmeath Committee should write to the Chairman of the Public Business Committee to request that the meeting of that 688 Committee might be postponed. Subsequently, in compliance with a desire strongly expressed that the Public Business Committee should, if possible, complete its sittings before Easter, and with that object should have two sittings instead of one during the week, the earlier meeting on Tuesday was arranged. But this also was upon public grounds, and not to suit the convenience of individual Members.

§ MR. BOWRING
regretted that this subject had again been brought under the notice of the House. He thought it might have been left to the good feeling of the Committee generally.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
said, the real question was, whether a meeting of the Committee, having been fixed for the 31st instant, an irregularity had not been committed by the Chairman and three or four Members of the Committee in arranging to antedate that meeting, and to hold it upon Tuesday.

§ MR. COLLINS
thought a mistake had been made originally in not meeting upon the Tuesday and adjourning proformâ, or some other day. Full notice, however, had been given of the meeting to-morrow; therefore, if by sitting on two days during the present week they should be able to come to a Resolution, and report before Easter, he hoped that Members would attend and make progess with the business.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, he should attend to-morrow, but it would certainly be at considerable inconvenience.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I hardly think I can with propriety be called on to intervene in this matter. When a Committee is appointed it elects its own Chairman and appoints its days for sitting, and, as has been said very properly in the course of this discussion, it is often necessary, for the general convenience, that the Chairman should take upon himself any alteration in the course of business which may become necessary. The only point which seems to be submitted for my consideration is, whether in a case where a meeting of the Committee has been settled for a later day, as for Friday, the Committee can with propriety be summoned for an earlier day—that is to say, for Tuesday. It is a rule of this House that when Public Notice has once been given of a Motion, it being obviously impossible to communicate with every 689 one of the 650 Members, the day fixed cannot be altered—at least, it cannot be anticipated. But on this occasion the Chairman was acting, as I understand, to the best of his judgment for the convenience of the Committee, and in accordance with the desire of such Members of the Committee as he had been able to communicate with. There had been, moreover, no fixed adjournment of the Committee. The Chairman had merely intimated to the Committee a proposal that they should meet upon Tuesday. In this there does not appear to me to have been anything contravening the rules of the House.