§ EARL PERCYrose to call attention to the practice of referring, in the course of debates in this House, to debates in the House of Lords, and proposed to move—
That it is highly desirable that the rule of this House that 'no Member may allude to any debate in the other House of Parliament' should be strictly observed.
§ MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the Amendment of the noble Lord could not 1623 be put, as the House had already negatived the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark (Colonel Beresford), but the noble Lord could address the House upon his Amendment.
§ EARL PERCYsaid, that he addressed the House with some hesitation, because he had been accused the other night of "lecturing the House;" and while he did not think he had been amenable to that charge, he was aware that in proposing to deal with a question affecting the Rules which guided their proceedings he might be considered guilty of presumption. He could only say that had any other hon. Member seemed disposed to undertake the matter he would gladly have left it in his hands. As to the terms of the Motion he had placed on the Paper, he trusted it would not be thought that he had been wanting in any respect to the Speaker, who enjoyed the confidence of the House so fully that it would be a suicidal act on the part of any one wishing to engage the attention of the House to expose himself to a suspicion of that character. He wished it also to be understood that he had no idea of proposing any modification of the Rule to which he specially alluded, and he had brought it forward simply because he felt that the practice of referring in the one House to the debates in the other House of Parliament was a most inconvenient practice, and might have perhaps serious consequences. It was an ancient rule, the value of which had been recognized, by many eminent Members of the House. But it had been evaded in the spirit, if not in the letter, several times during the present Parliament, and the consequence had been a great deal of undesirable agitation both within and without the walls of Parliament. The instance which was uppermost in his thoughts occurred two years ago, when the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) told the House that a noble Lord in "another place," a Member of the Government, had spoken of "the blustering majority in that House." The right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) then characterized the practice of discussing the speeches of the Peers as "most objectionable," and said the hon. and learned Member had given "the most conspicuous and objectionable example" of the practice which he had 1624 ever known. The result was, that they were led into a long and painful wrangle, which he thought unworthy of that House; and, after all, it turned out that the noble Lord had never used the words attributed to him. When such things were possible, the danger of the practice was evident. In the recent debate upon the Resolution of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), with regard to the Royal Proclamation, copious quotations were made from a report of the Lord Chancellor's speech in "another place." The report contained an important mis-statement, which, it so happened, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was able to correct at the time; but other speeches were also referred to, which could not be corrected in the same manner, and the House had no means of ascertaining what mis-statements might have been made with reference to them, because those who had uttered them were not present to defend or explain what they had said in "another place." That was the most serious fault of the whole matter; because, in commenting on such speeches, they were attacking those who had no power of defending themselves. It was important to observe the Rule that no debate of the current Session in the Lower House of Parliament should be referred to; but if the House saw cause to suspend that Rule, the Members concerned would have it in their power to be present and defend their utterances. That was, of course, not the case with regard to Members of the other House, who were consequently attacked behind their backs. Such a course, he submitted, was unfair to those who were the objects of it, and unworthy of that House; while it was not likely to promote the good understanding which all must desire to see maintained between the two Houses. If noble Lords elsewhere copied that example, and exercised their talents in criticizing speeches made in that House, could hon. Members consistently resent it? He need not say more to show that the evasion of the Rule was a serious matter; and much regretting its occurrence, would leave it to other hon. Members of greater experience to say whether some change should not be made in order to prevent it.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he agreed with the noble Lord in 1625 condemning the practice in question, but thought it was more frequently followed in the House of Lords than in that House. Some noble Lords even went the length of naming the hon. Member whose speech they quoted. As an instance, he might mention that in the other House recently, during a discussion respecting Dover Harbour, allusions were made by name to another hon. Member and himself, who had opposed the expenditure of public money there. The hon. Member named was the Member for Burnley who at all times and under all difficulties did his duty in protecting the public money, and was entitled to their respect. Believing that the expenditure was wasteful, he had simply done his duty in trying to prevent it; and he thought it was not right for a Peer thus to name Members of this House who were discharging what they believed to be a public duty. He might also mention another feature in the speeches in "another place," and that in connection with the Dover Harbour project. Last year he had himself done his best to obtain information with regard to that expensive project, but it was so hidden in the dark chambers of the Treasury and Cabinet that no details connected with the project could be obtained, yet he found that within the last few days the very information which he wanted, and which he was unable to get had been given by a noble Lord in "another place."
§ MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. and gallant Member that in referring to a debate in the other House of Parliament during the present Session, he was himself breaking the Rule now under discussion.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURbowed to the decision of the Speaker.
§ MR. DISRAELISir, the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken managed, in the course of his short speech, to violate the rules of both Houses of Parliament. He has not only succeeded in the indiscretion to which my noble Friend the Member for North Northumberland (Earl Percy) wishes to call attention—namely, that of referring to proceedings which took place in the other House of Parliament—but in the next place devoted a portion of his speech to a question which was not before the House at all, the large expenditure incurred in reference to the pier at Dover 1626 —a matter as to which we know that he has great experience. I think, Sir, that the House is much indebted to my noble Friend for bringing the question before the House for its consideration. Of late years there has been, perhaps, an excess of licence on the part of both Houses respectively inalluding to the proceedings of the other House of Parliament, and I should be sorry to vindicate any error of our own in that respect by alleging the existence of a similar indiscretion in the other House. That would not vindicate our course, but would rather show the injurious consequences of the example we had set. I think it ought to be known upon what basis the right of interference rests if such conduct is to be further pursued. It is not a Sessional or Standing Order of this House that we should make no reference to the debates of the other House of Parliament; it is, I think, part of what we call the Common Law of Parliament, and I hope before this conversation closes that Mr. Speaker will favour us with his authoritative opinion on that point. But then, if it be, as I suppose, part of the Common Law of Parliament, there may yet be, I think, occasions on which, with, of course, some adroitness, it may be absolutely requisite and for the advantage of discussion that some notice should be taken even of expressions that may be used in the other House. But that must be done with the utmost deference and diffidence, and I hesitate not to say as my own opinion—and I believe it is not an uncommon one—that there has been of late too much licence in that respect. It is a proceeding which every one feels must be full of inconvenience and unfairness. It is not merely that we criticize the words of those who are absent, but that unfortunately we may criticize words which were never spoken. Although it is very true that the newspaper reports of what occurs in both Houses of Parliament are, considering the great difficulties and the pressure of time which the reporters have to encounter, remarkable productions, still there is no doubt that if you come to verbal criticism no speech can bear supervision in that respect. I merely wish to express my sympathy with my noble Friend in the observations he has made. I believe a useful and beneficial result may arise from the attention he has directed to the subject 1627 but, at the same time, I desire to call attention to the fact that it is not a rule which depends upon a Standing Order; and the matter is so important that I shall take the liberty of asking your opinion, Sir, on the subject, so that we may have some authoritative declaration as to the basis on which the Rule rests.
§ MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, he had referred to the work which was always consulted by hon. Members when any question arose as to the rules of the House—namely, The Law and Practice of Parliament, by Sir Erskine May—and he found it there stated that allusion in debates to proceedings in the other House of Parliament were out of Order, because they were necessarily made in the absence of the person whose statements were referred to, but mainly because the proceedings of one House were not known to the other. They all knew the Resolutions which were agreed to, but there was no official record of the debates, and in the absence of such record what could be more inconvenient than the criticism of language the accuracy of which there was no means of testing? The practice of hon. Members alluding to debates which had occurred in that House was increasing, and he regretted to say that some of the greatest offences against the rule had proceeded from some of the most distinguished Members of the House. He had also always understood it was a part of the common law of Parliament, which tended to the decorum of their proceedings, that the Member in possession of the House should address himself to the Speaker, and yet that rule was frequently broken. It was probable that, as time went on, the House would become more democratic, and therefore it became of more importance that the strict rules of Order should be observed, and he deprecated the observations which were made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel), when he said that Members ought to be allowed to refer to speeches made elsewhere, and that any Rule to the contrary ought to be put an end to. It would be well that the Rule on the subject brought under their consideration by his noble Friend should be known and observed as far as possible.
§ SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, he had listened to debates in "another place," eight out of ten of which were 1628 marked by the gravity and by the excellence of the tone and temper of the speeches; but he believed that the irregularity deprecated by the noble Lord the Member for Northumberland (Earl Percy) was oftener committed "elsewhere" than it was in the House of Commons. He should be sorry to commit a breach of Order by referring to any particular instance, but he might be allowed to say that he had recently heard a debate which arose in that House criticized in "another place," and, having heard the original debate, he must say he could hardly recognize it. Surely a better example ought to be set to them. In the other House of Parliament there was no one occupying the position which Mr. Speaker occupied in that House to call Peers to Order. Noble Lords were masters of their own behaviour, and it behoved them to be the more careful in each respectively governing his own conduct. He remembered witnessing a most unruly scene some years since, when a question arose whether a Peer who had given a proxy, and who was leaning with his arm on the Bar, was in the House or out of it. ["Order!"] He was not alluding to any specific occasion.
§ MR. DODSONthought there could be no doubt that the Rules which governed their debates, both as to that and the other House of Parliament, were of great importance, and that it was desirable they should be observed. It was also for the interest of all that whenever there was a disposition to depart from those Rules hon. Members should be recalled to the importance of observing regulations so useful to themselves and the other House of Parliament. He had not, however, observed that there had been any special tendency to laxity of late, or that in former times the Rules of debate were more strictly adhered to than during the present or recent Sessions. An hon. Member who preceded the last speaker alluded to those unauthorized reports which, although not recognized by the House, they all knew the convenience and advantage of. He said that, as the House had no authorized record of its debates, it was inconvenient to refer to former debates. That was perfectly true, but he would remind that speaker that such an argument must not be too strictly pressed.
§ MR. J. R. YORKErose to Order, and reminded the right hon. Gentleman that it was irregular to refer to him as "that speaker."
§ MR. DODSONwished to know whether he was out of Order in referring to the speech just made by the hon. Gentleman?
§ MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, it was out of Order to allude to any hon. Member as "that speaker."
§ MR. DODSONhad no objection to describe the hon. Gentleman as "the hon. Member who had just spoken from the Bench" if that would be more satisfactory to him. In the successive stages of a Bill preceding debates were constantly referred to. No doubt the strict Rule of the House was if a subject had been disposed of by Bill or Resolution, that it should not be brought up again in subsequent debates. He presumed, however, that the difficulty, and with it the Motion of the noble Lord opposite (Earl Percy) had arisen upon the Proclamation issued under the Royal Titles Bill. But the discussion on the Proclamation had been treated as only a sequel to the debates upon the Bill, and it would have been impossible to discuss the issue thus raised, unless the House had allowed different speakers to refer to what had been said on the different stages of the Royal Titles Bill. The House could only, in fact, deal with the previous debates as constituting former stages of the same measure. The House was called upon to compare the Proclamation with the promises given, or alleged to have been given, when the Bill was before Parliament, and the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government generously and properly interposed in order that the necessary latitude of debate might be allowed. The same debates were alluded to in the other House, and for the same reason—that it was impossible to discuss the coincidence of the Proclamation with the promises with which it was said to conflict or by which it was sought to be justified, unless Members were permitted to refer to what had been said by the Members of the Government, and the same latitude had been required by, and had been granted to, Members on both sides of the House. That, however, was an exceptional case which was not likely to arise again, and the latitude, of which complaint had been made, was conceded 1630 on that understanding. The noble Lord opposite had done good service by calling attention to the necessity of a general adherence to the Rules of the House, and he (Mr. Dodson) trusted he would be satisfied with having done so, and with having entered a protest against what had taken place being construed into a precedent.
§ MR. SPEAKERBefore this discussion closes it is right I should state that it is part of the unwritten law of Parliament that no allusion should be made in this House to the debates and proceedings in the other House of Parliament during the current Session. There is no Standing Order on the subject, but the unwritten law of Parliament is of equal, if not greater, force than any Standing Order of this House. I collect from the discussion which has now taken place that it is the desire of this House that the law of Parliament in this respect should be strictly observed and enforced. That is my own view, and I am thankful to have my hands strengthened in this matter by the observations that have been made this evening. As the House is aware, this law is occasionally evaded in a manner which, with every desire to be strict, I am not always able to correct. At the same time it will be my duty on all occasions, as far as I can, to enforce that Rule strictly. I am persuaded that it is of great importance to our debates in this House, especially with regard to our relations with the other House, that no allusion should be made to debates in the other House; and that the unwritten law of Parliament herein should be strictly observed.