HC Deb 29 March 1887 vol 312 cc1786-90
MR. BROADHURST (Nottingham, W.)

asked the hon. Member for the Norwood Division of Lambeth (Mr. Bristowe) a Question of which he had given private Notice, Whether the Division Lists of the Sittings of the House on Monday, March 21, in which his name appeared as having voted in the Divisions No. 78, 79, and 80, were correct; whether it was not the fact that he paired with the hon. Member for West Nottingham for the night before Division No. 78 was taken; and, whether he could state any grounds for having so voted in face of the recognized Rule governing the practice of pairing between hon. Members of the House?

MR. BRISTOWE (Lambeth, Norwood)

In reply to the Question of my hon. Friend, I beg to say that his statement is correct. Probably from inexperience, on the morning of the 22nd I arrived about 10 o'clock and entered into the Lobby, taking part in the first Division. On the second Division, having heard that there was some doubt about the Regulations of the House, I applied to the Whips for information, and was told that it was competent for me to enter into the Division Lobby. Consequently, I did so. Afterwards the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) arrived, and in his presence we consulted, among others, my right hon. Friend the Member for the Dart ford Division of Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke), who stated that he, having been a Whip for 12 years, considered I was quite entitled to vote. Under these circumstances, I took part in the three Divisions; and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this may serve as an occasion for having this matter settled; for it is a most unpleasant tiring that there should be any question in regard to a matter of this kind—and that a private Member should be suspected of doing something which he ought not to do—a practice which I should be the last to enter into.

MR. ARNOLD MORLEY (Nottingham, E.)

asked the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Akers-Douglas), as the senior Ministerial Whip, the following Question, of which he also had given private Notice:—Whether 25 Members of this House supporting Her Majesty's Government had paired for the night during the Sitting of the House on Monday, March 21; whether, notwithstanding that they so paired, they voted in several Divisions, such Divisions taking place during the continuance of the Silting; whether the act of so voting is not in opposition to the recognized Rule governing the practices of pairs between Members of this House; whether it is a fact that during the same Sitting of the House the junior Member for Bolton (Colonel Bridge-man), supporting Her Majesty's Government, was paired for the night with the hon. Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. W. B. Rowlands), and during the night, without the previous consent of the hon. Member for Cardiganshire, the name of the hon. Member for Kirkcudbright (Mr. Mark Stewart) was substituted for that of the junior Member for Bolton; and whether, notwithstanding the pair was still in existence, the junior Member for Bolton voted in several Divisions?

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL (Paddington, S.)

I rise, Sir, to a point of Order in regard to the Question that has just been put. I wish to ask, whether there is any precedent for discussion in this House as to arrangements which may take place between Members with regard to Divisions; whether the practice of pairing has ever been formally recognized by this House; whether pairs are ever recorded by the House in any of its records; whether it has ever been the practice of this House, in its corporate capacity, to take any cognizance whatever of the practice known as pairing; and, whether, if such be the case, a departure from the ancient practice might not be attended with the utmost possible inconvenience?

MR. SPEAKER

I was informed that it was the intention of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. Morley) who acts in an official capacity for Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House, to ask a Question on this point of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Akers-Douglas) who acts in a similar capacity for the Supporters of the Government. I was not aware that any Question on the subject was going to be put to a private Member of the House. That, I think, was rather irregular. I thought it would be for the convenience of the House, as a matter affecting, in some sense, the Business of the House, that I should throw no obstacle in the way of the hon. Gentleman asking the Question, especially as there was great doubt in the minds of hon. Members as to what the proper course was; and that I should allow a quasi official statement to be made which might set the minds of hon. Members at rest, and establish a precedent for the future.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

May I supplement the Question which has been put to the Secretary to the Treasury by asking, whether any of the Gentlemen referred to took part in the Division on the Closure?

THE PATRONAGE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS) (Kent, St. Augustine's)

In answer to the Question just put to me by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, I beg to say that, as far as I know, no Member who was paired for the night voted in the Closure Division. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, I believe that some 25 Members of this House, Supporters of the Government, paired for the night on Monday, the 21st instant; but I cannot admit that they voted "during the continuance of such pairs." Of these Members, 22 voted after 9.30 in the morning of Tuesday with my sanction; and, in so voting, I contend that they were acting in concert with, and not— In opposition to the recognized Rules which govern the practice of pairs between Members of this House. I have always understood that a pair entered into for "the night" is only intended to hold good until the morning, and that if two Members wish to pair for the whole Sitting, such an arrangement is specified in the Pair List by the words, "For Sitting." On the occasion alluded to, several hon. Members came down to the House desiring to vote in the Closure Division, but, acting upon my advice, refrained from voting until after 9 o'clock in the morning, at which time I considered there could be no question but that pairs "for the night" had lapsed. I was supported in this view by my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council (Sir William Hart Dyke) and by the Leader of the House, to both of whom I submitted the question, as well as by my own experience in being myself allowed to vote under similar circumstances after the All-night Sitting in January, 1881. With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, I had, at the time, no knowledge of the action taken by the junior Member for Bolton. I may, perhaps, be allowed to add that if any doubt as to the definition of a "night pair" exists, I am as anxious as the hon. Gentleman himself to arrive at a clear understanding on the point. And I would suggest that those who are generally considered responsible for the organization of the various Parties in this House should meet and agree as to a ruling upon this point, of which ruling I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will gladly avail themselves.

MR. E. W. DUFF (Banffshire)

Will the hon. Gentleman kindly say when that Rule as to "night pairs" was established? As Whip from 1882 to 1885, when we had several All-night Sittings, I am quite satisfied that no such Rule was ever established. The invariable Rule was to pair for the Sitting, however long that Sitting was. In order that I might not trust to my own memory, I referred the matter to Lord Kensington, who was a Whip for 12 years, and he answers me that, to the best of his recollection, this is what has invariably happened.

MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS

Perhaps I also might be allowed to say that I have consulted authorities on this point. I consulted my Predecessor, Lord St. Oswald, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Sir William Hart Dyke), my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir John Mowbray)—as one well acquainted with the Rules of this House—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth), who all agreed with me. I can only repeat that I am most anxious that this point should be settled. Whatever I did I did in perfect bona fides, and I sent for no Member to vote on the Closure Division, or until 9 o'clock in the morning, when his pair for the night I thought certainly mast have expired.

MR. ARNOLD MORLEY

explained that his only object in raising the question was in the interest of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and in the hope that it might lead to the adoption of some rule which would be generally recognized, and he gladly accepted the suggestion of the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury.