HC Deb 11 February 1884 vol 284 cc557-65

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Standing Committee be appointed to control the arrangements of the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms, in the department of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House."—(Sir William Hart Dyke.)

MR. SHELL

said, he hoped the right hon. Baronet (Sir William Hart Dyke) would follow the good example set by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Courtney), as he intended to oppose the appointment of this particular Committee. No one knew the working of the Dining Department sufficiently well, and he should move the adjournment of the debate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Sheil.)

MR. MOLLOY

said, it was his intention to divide on every one of the names to be proposed.

SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE

said, printing was an important matter connected with the proceedings of the House; but he ventured to say that, whatever else might take place, hon. Members must dine at least once a-day, and therefore he thought that, with regard to this Department, urgency might be demanded. Of course, if hon. Members said they were going to divide on every single name, he must place the matter in the hands of the House as to whether he should press the question further on that occasion.

MR. RICHARD POWER

hoped the right hon. Baronet (Sir William Hart Dyke) would press this matter. This was a question of urgency, and yet the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Molloy) stated that he intended to divide on every name, and the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Sheil) had given no reason for opposing the appointment of this Committee. He (Mr. Richard Power) took it for granted that the hon. Member was not satisfied with the dinner he had had that night; but, if that was so, how was he going to remedy that state of affairs? Surely not by refusing to have this Committee appointed. If the state of the kitchen, or the manner in which dinners were served in that House—and on the present occasion he would not express any opinion upon that—was unsatisfactory, surely that could only be remedied by the appointment of the Committee which had the sole control of the Refreshment Department, The result of the Motion of his hon. Friend would be that there could be no remedy for the defects of which this bilious Gentleman complained, and if the Committee was not appointed that night, hon. Members would probably have no dinner at all to-morrow. Upon those grounds he would really appeal to his hon. Friend, unless he could give some better argument than he had yet advanced, not to press his Motion. After all, a man might get a bad dinner wherever he went, and it was just as much the fault of the man who ordered the dinner as the man who served it. There were a great many men who did not know how to order, and then they said it was the fault of the cook, whereas they did not know what was good and what was bad. The only way in which Gentlemen who suffered as his hon. Friend did from bilious arrangements was by appointing a Committee to look after the kitchen, and he did not think there could be a better Committee to look after the prosperity of his hon. Friend than the present Committee. He believed they did all they could to satisfy the peculiar tastes of his two hon. Friends, and he hoped they would allow the Committee to be appointed.

MR. SHEIL

said, he understood the right hon. Baronet (Sir William Hart Dyke) to say he would not press the Motion. He did not approve of this particular Committee; and all hon. Members had not all his knowledge of the dining in that House.

SIR WILLIAM HABT DYKE

said, he had left the matter in the hands of the House. If the House had shown any disposition to adjourn he should have acceded to that.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 53: Majority 38.—(1) iv. List, No. 10.)

Main Question again proposed.

MR. SHEIL

said, he rose to a point of Order.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member has already spoken; he cannot speak again.

MR. SHEIL

said, he wished to speak to a point of Order. He desired to ask whether, inasmuch as the Notice of this Motion had only been put on the Paper that day, it was not within the right of any hon. Member to object to it, in order that he might have an opportunity of placing a Notice of Amendment on the Paper?

MR. SPEAKER

The Rule does not apply in this case.

MR. MOLLOY

asked if hon. Members had not the right to object to certain Gentlemen being appointed Members of the Committee?

MR. SPEAKER

The first Question put will be the appointment of the Committee. The names will be put afterwards.

Main Question put, and agreed to. Standing Committee appointed, "to control the arrangements of the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms, in the department of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Maurice Brooks be a Member of the said Committee."—(Sir William Hart Dyke.)

MR. HEALY

said, that, as a means of enforcing the views which he and his hon. Friends held, it would be well to object to the first name proposed. Unfortunately, the name was that of the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Maurice Brooks). The first essential of a good dinner was that it should be hot, but that essential was wanting to-night here. The Irish Members were obliged to dine constantly at the House. The majority of them did not belong to any club, and, as a general rule, it was not safe for them to leave the House, especially when any Irish Votes were likely to be proposed, or any other Irish Business likely to be introduced. Hence they were obliged to dine in the Refreshment Room of the House. He considered the Members of the Committee ought to be men who dined at the House constantly. That was a claim he might very fairly make. If hon. Members glanced over the names of the Gentlemen who were to be proposed as Members of the Committee, they would find they were not Gentlemen who, as a rule, dined at the House. He trusted the right hon. Baronet (Sir William Hart Dyke) would seriously consider this point. At all events, he was of opinion that hon. Gentlemen, like the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Maurice Brooks) and the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), who dined so seldom at the House, ought not to be chosen as Members of the Committee, and he suggested to the right hon. Baronet the advisability of postponing the selection of the Gentlemen who were to form the Committee, or of appointing some Gentlemen who were anxious to serve, and who constantly dined here.

SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE

said, the question was one for the House at large to consider and deal with. It was true that some of the Members of the Committee did not very often dine at the House; but, at the same time, other Members of the Committee dined at the House almost every night. The Gentlemen of the Committee, in general, devoted much time and attention to the work assigned to them. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had suggested that Gentlemen who belonged to the Committee received special favours. He (Sir William Hart Dyke) knew nothing of any special favours being meted out to Members of the Committee. The hon. Member for Monaghan had also said something about having had a cold dinner. He (Sir William Hart Dyke) dined at the House that night, and he certainly was favoured with a hot dinner.

MR. MOLLOY

said, he thought the name of Mr. Maurice Brooks ought to be removed from the Committee. Year after year attempts had been made to alter the composition of the Committee and improve the refreshment arrangements; but all to no purpose. The dining room attached to the House was supposed to resemble a club—the conditions and general arrangements under which Members dined at the House were supposed to be similar to those in an ordinary club. Now, one of the first conditions in a club, or, indeed, in an ordinary restaurant, was that the persons who attended to the members were the servants of the members. The waiters at the House, however, had already declared that they only received a small salary from the contractor, and that they were told to look to the Members, instead of to their employer, for payment. No one objected to the small amount generally given to waiters; but the result of the system which obtained at the House was that hon. Gentlemen were not treated as members of a club were treated. If an hon. Member did not keep to the well-understood rule, and should not make a present to the waiter after dinner, he did not receive the attention he was entitled to. The lack of attention in such cases was well known; but he had never heard of the Committee making any exception to it. His hon. Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. Richard Power), in one of the funny speeches he was accustomed to make, spoke of the biliousness of those who objected to the composition of this Committee. Last year he (Mr. Molloy) grumbled at the exceedingly bad dinners which were served at the House; and he spoke to his hon. Friend (Mr. Richard Power) concerning the matter. His hon. Friend, in return, asked him where they could get a better dinner. He (Mr. Molloy) thereupon suggested that they should apply a test. The same night they dined together at the House, and the next night he invited his hon. Friend to dine with him at his Club. They took a cab in Palace Yard, and drove to the Club, where they had an infinitely better dinner than they could get at the House. They then drove back to the House, and the price of the dinner, including the cab to and fro, was less than they would have paid for an exceedingly bad dinner at the House. ["What about the subscription to the Club?"] Did not the House give the contractor £1,000 a-year? Did they not find him in kitchen, gas, and all table requirements? Did they not find him in everything but eatables and liquors, all of which were exceedingly bad? The wine list was worse than that in any restaurant in London; the most ordinary wines were not to be found on the list, and the prices were 50 per cent higher than those usually charged. It was for these reasons that the Members who were compelled to dine, night after night, at the House objected to the manner in which they were treated. A large number of hon. Members complained of the present state of things. Many who had cause to complain were not now present; but they, nevertheless, felt that the work of the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms Committee was done very imperfectly. The view was pretty generally entertained that the Committee were an exceedingly amiable body of Gentlemen, who enjoyed their meetings very much after the fashion that a Club Committee meeting was enjoyed. The charges in the Dining Room were exorbitant, and the drink supplied was simply abominable. He had had a little practice in whiskey drinking, though he did not profess to be as good a judge of that commodity as some Gentlemen whom he might name. He agreed, however, in the opinion that the whiskey supplied to them very much resembled a torchlight procession going down one's throat. The whiskey was new and raw; everything was charged double; the coffee was exceedingly bad—worse than that served in any club in London; the waiting was simply abominable; and all this he attributed to the fact that the Committee did not attend to their work properly. He therefore begged to move that the name of Mr. Maurice Brooks, which was the first on the list, be removed; and that in its place be substituted that of——

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member will not be in Order in moving another name.

MR. MOLLOY

presumed he was entitled to move that the name of Mr. Maurice Brooks be removed from the list of the Committee.

MR. SHEIL

asked if it was not competent for an hon. Member to give Notice of a Motion to substitute another name? The difficulty in which the House found itself arose from the fact that the right hon. Baronet (Sir William Hart Dyke) had moved the Motion the very day he gave Notice of it.

MR. SPEAKER

If the House thought proper to strike out the name of Mr. Maurice Brooks, it would be open for the hon. Member, or any other hon.

Member, to move another name on another day.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 17: Majority 27.—(Div. List, No. 11.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Henry Edwards be one other Member of the said Committee."—(Sir William Hart Dyke.)

MR. BIGGAR

said, he would move the adjournment of the debate. It was scandalous to thrust these names upon the House; and if the facts were really understood by hon. Members generally, these proceedings would not be countenanced any longer. There was the article, Irish whiskey, for which a most exorbitant charge was made. Hon. Members had to pay 6d. for only a 4d. glass. For the reasons stated, it appeared to him desirable to postpone the consideration of the names of the Committee to some future time, when they could be properly discussed. The contractor received a large sum in the form of a grant from the House, and that should be considered. On the whole, it was desirable that the matter should be fully and carefully discussed. It was impossible to fully and carefully discuss it now; therefore, he thought there should be an adjournment of its consideration.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Biggar.)

MR. MOLLOY

said, he would support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. Hon. Members had no desire to stay here all night, and yet the objection taken to the present refreshment arrangements was a serious one. If the right hon. Baronet (Sir William Hart Dyke) would agree to a re-arrangement of the Committee, that would be sufficient for the time; but if he was determined to carry the whole of the names as they stood on the Paper, there would have to be a fight, and that would be a great pity. He (Mr. Molloy), and those who thought with him in this matter, had lost their opportunity in the more clever tactics of the Committee—who knew what they were going to do, and kept it to themselves—on the last two occasions. The House would be wise, he thought, in agreeing to the terms now offered, and allowing hon. Members to go home to bed. Earlier, on another subject, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) had given way, and had assented to an adjournment, seeing that there was serious objection to going on with the subject under discussion at that hour in the morning—2.45. The Government had seen no difficulty in giving way; but the right hon. Baronet, who was not a Member of the Government, but simply represented a private Committee, which—the right hon. Baronet would forgive him for saying it—was a very inefficient one, declined to yield. He pointed this out to show that whatever time hon. Members were kept here, and whatever opposition was now shown, would be the fault of the right hon. Baronet. It was to be hoped that the right hon. Baronet would meet those who opposed his Motion in the spirit with which they were willing to meet him.

MR. HEALY

said, he must protest against a private Member being allowed to keep the House sitting like this on a private Member's Motion. When the Government could have passed a Motion of theirs through a short time ago, they would not do it, out of deference to their opponents; but here was a private Member bent upon doing it. Let the right hon. Baronet follow the example of the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney). If he would not do that, then those who opposed him—as there was a principle at stake in this matter—should take a Division against every name on the proposed Committee, and give Notice to add a great many new names. There was upon the Committee the name "Mr. Maurice Brooks." That hon. Gentleman had only attended twice out of 22 times last year. Surely that was not a creditable number of attendances. These suggestions were not made for factious purposes, and it was as much to the interest of the right hon. Baronet as to that of hem. Members that they should work harmoniously and creditably together. Let the right hon. Baronet give them to understand that he would consent to add to his list such names as that of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Sheil) and hon. Members opposite who were constantly in the House. The result, he (Mr. Healy) was confident, would be harmonious working afterwards.

SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE

said, he thought there was one consideration which should be allowed to guide them in this matter, and that was the late hour they were detaining Mr. Speaker in the Chair that night, although it must be confessed that the subject, touching as it did the comfort of hon. Members, was not an insignificant one. Hon. Members who had taken part in this discussion, and had been opposing these names, seemed to think that he (Sir William Hart Dyke) had been rather standing on his dignity, and, as Chairman of the Committee, had some feeling in the matter. He could assure the House that was not the case. He had no feeling in the matter, except to do what was right to hon. Members, and to support the Committee, which had worked very hard, and had reached a state of perfection which had never been reached before, in spite of what had been said to the contrary. He had been connected with the Kitchen and Refreshment Committee for some years, and could assure the House that last year and the year before they had had fewer complaints in regard to the refreshments than they had ever had. This matter was somewhat urgent. Complaints had been made by hon. Members with reference to the dinner they had had that evening, and if the Committee were appointed, and could meet on Wednesday next, they could have these complaints brought before them, and could deal with them. This was one of the chief reasons why he proposed that the Committee should be nominated to-night. If they were to wrangle, night after night, over these names, there would be no one to be responsible for those who managed the Refreshment Department. He hoped they would remember that besides the refreshment in the Dining Room there was another refreshment that they all required—namely, a little sleep. He would assent to the appeal made to him now, hoping that, on another occasion, they might be more fortunate in discussing the question.

Question put, and agreed to.

Debate adjourned till Thursday.