§ LORD REDESDALEsaid, he wished to recall the attention of their Lordships to what took place in that House on Friday night. He hoped their Lordships would give him credit for not wishing to provoke any angry feelings in reference to what then occurred, but in justice to himself it was absolutely essential that he should advert briefly to the subject. The whole question turned upon what was the practice of the House regarding notices. He believed that in this matter their Lordships were mainly guided not by Standing Orders, but by usage, which should be still more binding. No one was more strongly convinced than he was, and no one could urge more strongly than he did, that nothing should be done without proper notice. It was upon all occasions desirable, in regard to Bills in their Lordships' House, that the utmost possible notice should be given. In the early part of the Session, Bills remained upon the books many days, and sometimes weeks, without 2006 any notice being given of an intention to proceed with them; but towards the close of the Session the time allowed for notices necessarily became shorter, although it was important that the greatest possible length of notice compatible with the proceedings of the House should be given; and when the days of the Session were numbered, there ought not to be an hour's delay in giving notice of any proceeding on a Bill. If the noble Lord in charge of a particular Bill gave no notice, it became the duty of noble Lords who took an interest in the Bill to discover whether it was intended to proceed with it or not. If it were to be proceeded with due notice should be given, and it was perfectly in the power of any noble Lord to propose not to proceed with any measure on the ground of the lateness of the Session, by giving proper notice of his intention to raise that issue. If this rule applied to private Peers, how much more essential was it that notice should be given by the Government; for otherwise, from its great power, it might always take the House by surprise, even at the last day of the Session, and so deprive any noble Lord who wished to oppose a measure of the opportunity of doing so. The course he had pursued in reference to the Divorce Bill was to give the earliest notice possible of his intention to move the postponement of the consideration of the Amendments—a course which obtained publicity through the circulation of the public journals. This step he had taken in a manner perfectly courteous to the other House, because he founded his intention upon the late period of the Session and the small attendance of right rev. Prelates who were more especially capable of advising their Lordships upon the subject. But the notice was distinctly given by word of mouth and circulated throughout the whole country by the public press. To show that a summary proceeding in regard to the consideration of Amendments by both Houses was not without precedent, he might cite the case of the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill in 1836, when Lord John Russell moved, without notice, immediately on the return of the messengers from the Conference, that the Amendments of the Lords be taken into consideration on that day three months; that took place on the 30th June, though Parliament was not prorogued until the 20th August; and that of the Registration of Electors Bill in 1838, when Lord Melbourne moved, 2007 without notice (Parliament was prorogued the next day), that the Lords do not insist on their Amendments which had been rejected by the Commons only the night before. No objection was taken against the Motion on the score of want of notice. The Opposition were prepared, and the Government were defeated; and he believed that on the present occasion, if the noble Lords opposite had found themselves strong enough, no objection would have been raised on the ground of informality. With respect to such of the matter as was personal to himself, he trusted he might be allowed to say a few words. He thought their Lordships would be disposed to admit, that since he had the honour of a seat in that House, he had not laid himself open to the charge of being disorderly, or of promoting disorder. Whether he was right or whether he was wrong in the form of notice he had given, he thought he had just ground to complain of the manner in which he was treated on Friday night. The Divorce Bill, though a Government Bill, was not a party Bill. Many of his noble Friends on that side of the House had given to it their support; and many on both sides of the House had given to it their earnest and conscientious opposition. Now, he begged to ask their Lordships what was the position of affairs on the day he gave his notice? Why, a fortnight had elapsed since the day fixed by the House as the last on which any Bill should be read a second time, and the Appropriation Bill was down upon their Minutes for a third reading, and surely, under such circumstances, when the Session was upon the very eve of its termination, no long notice could have been expected. Every day that passed more and more diminished the power of Peers who, independent of any party motives or connections, were opposing a Government measure. For these reasons he had asserted then, as he asserted now, that his notice was sufficient. Well, but it would be said, why had he not proceeded with it? To this he replied, that though confident in the propriety of the course he had taken, yet after the appeals made to him by the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, by the noble and learned Lord the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, by the noble Earl the President of the Council, by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) who sat opposite, and, he might add, by his noble and learned Friend who sat near 2008 him (Lord St. Leonards), he consented to withdraw his notice on Friday night, not wishing to set up his own opinions against the opinions of so many other Peers of weight and authority. He must declare that the manner in which he was spoken of by more than one noble Lord was personally painful. He had not said one word to excite the hostile feelings of any one. However irritating the words were which had been addressed to him, however harshly they had grated upon his feelings, he was pleased to think that he had refrained from saying anything which had a tendency to disturb the order of their Lordships' House. He thought it better, in consequence of the temper and tone of noble Lords opposite, not to press the matter further upon that occasion; but he must say, it was hard, very hard, to bear, without noticing it, the language which some noble Lords thought fit to use, reminding him that he was the Chairman of Committees, and accusing him of acting in a manner unbecoming the holder of that office. He solemnly declared that if he could for one moment suppose that his conduct was open to the charge insinuated against him, he would not stand any longer before their Lordships in that or any other capacity. He felt more strongly this language, coming as it did from noble Lords with whom he had been for years on terms of friendship, and he could not but believe that upon the calm exercise of their judgment they would now be anxious to admit they had been hurried away by their feeling, and to accord that acknowledgment which he considered equally due from them to the House and to himself.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, if he were not mistaken he was the last who addressed their Lordships on the Motion of the noble Lord on Friday evening, and if he remembered accurately what he stated then it was that having a knowledge of the accuracy of his noble Friend (Lord Redesdale), as soon as his noble Friend said he had given the notice in question, and that he did not intend to take the House by surprise, he (Earl Granville) on his own behalf and that of his colleagues stated in the most explicit manner, that he entirely believed the assurance given by his noble Friend, and even went so far as to thank him for the handsome manner in which he withdrew his Motion. As far as the strict regularity of their proceedings was concerned, he believed that no notice of his 2009 Amendments was required from his noble Friend; and in the same way that on notice of the Amendments of the Bill having been sent from the House of Commons it was competent for him (Earl Granville), supposing that was the desire of the Government, to have moved that they be agreed to. But the Government were desirous that the House should have some little time to consider the Amendments, and proposed to defer their consideration for three days, and his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, proposed to fix Monday for that purpose. But to the infinite surprise not only of himself and his colleagues, but of several independent Peers, two or three persons came to him on Friday night and asked if he was aware that on the Lord Chancellor moving the adjournment of the House Lord Redesdale was going to move that the Commons' Amendments to the Divorce Bill be taken into consideration that day six months. A noble and learned Friend of his, who sat below him, told him that, although he did not believe it possible, there was a rumour that the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) intended at once to move that the Commons' Amendments be taken into consideration that day three months. He (Earl Granville) thought it was quite impossible the noble Lord could meditate such a course; but he went over and asked him whether he intended to move that the consideration of the Amendments should be postponed. The noble Lord at once said it was his intention to do so. At that time several members of the Government were absent, and there was a very thin attendance of Peers on that (the Ministerial) side; there was, however, a large attendance of noble Lords on the opposite benches—but that perhaps was not a singular circumstance, as the noble Lord had given notice of his intention to oppose the Commons' Amendments when they were brought up. He (Earl Granville) and his noble Friends felt that there was a complete surprise, and the assurance of the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) was required to remove the idea that some surprise had been intended. The Government did not themselves propose to proceed with the consideration of the Divorce Bill on Friday night, and he (Earl Granville) moved the adjournment of the House. That Motion was objected to by his noble Friend (Lord Redesdale); but, supposing the opposition had been pressed, and, upon a division, the adjournment had been negatived, he was at a loss to know 2010 whether the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) would have come forward and taken the Bill out of the hands of his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, and said to their Lordships, "This is not the Bill of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor; it is a Government Bill, and I will take upon myself to move that the Amendments be considered three months hence." He would repeat that he had not the slightest hesitation in accepting the assurance that his noble Friend had not intended any surprise; but he must say, at the same time, that the notice given by the noble Lord had led the Government to suppose that be did not mean to propose his Motion until the Commons' Amendments were brought, in the ordinary course of proceeding, under their Lordships' consideration. The noble Lord had said that he gave his notice viva voce, and not upon paper, and that his notice was, that when the Bill came up from the other House, he would propose his Motion. The terms of the Motion were certainly singularly indefinite; for, if one interpretation was applied to them, his noble Friend ought to have risen the moment the clerk at the table announced that the Bill had been brought up, and have moved that the consideration of the Amendments should be deferred. He (Earl Granville) did not regard the subject at all in a party light, but he was sure any noble Lords who heard the notice, on whichever side of the House they sat, must have concluded that it would be brought forward when the Amendments were in the usual course considered by their Lordships. One or two noble Lords on the opposite side felt there was a virtual surprise, and pressed his noble Friend to postpone his Motion. He (Earl Granville) could only say that he had great pleasure in repeating the assurance he had given on Friday night, that he entirely acquitted his noble Friend of any intention to take the House by surprise.
§ LORD ST. LEONARDSthought the only thing required to complete the satisfaction with which their Lordships had heard the statement of the noble Earl was, an expression of regret for some observations which had escaped him on Friday night with reference to the conduct of his noble Friend, and which were considered personally offensive.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he could not express regret which he did not feel. When the noble Lord announced his intention at once to take the sense of the House on his 2011 Motion, he (Earl Granville) might, in the excitement of the moment, have used expressions which were not approved by some noble Lords; but he had stated most explicitly his confidence in the assurance of his noble Friend; but even on cool reflection he saw nothing in the course he had taken the other evening for which he should express regret.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was not present on Friday night, and he was very glad he had not been in his place; but his understanding was, that when his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack moved that the Commons' Amendments should be considered, the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) would move the postponement of their consideration. He (the Duke of Argyll) had arranged to leave town on Friday, and certainly neither he nor any other Member of Her Majesty's Government would have done so if they had had the least idea that his noble Friend meant to bring forward his Motion on that day.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) had expressed a wish that his noble Friend (Earl Granville) had withdrawn some expressions which might have been considered offensive. He (the Lord Chancellor) did not believe any such expressions were used during the discussion; but his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) alluded on Friday night to some observations which fell from him (the Lord Chancellor), and which might, perhaps, require explanation. He was perfectly satisfied that his noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) did not intend any "trick;" but what he said was that if the whole Bill should be, to use a vulgar expression, "burked" by such a Motion as that of his noble Friend, the feeling out of doors would be that it had been done by a "trick." That opinion he expressed on Friday night, and he was now prepared to repeat it. The noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) had explained what he considered the proper mode of proceeding in a case of this kind, and had referred to two cases as bearing upon the question; but he (the Lord Chancellor) would ask whether in either of those cases the Motion was proposed not by the promoters of the Bill, but by its opponents? That made all the difference; for in some instances, when the promoter of a Bill received it back amended from the House of Commons, he did without any notice move that the Amendments should immediately be taken into 2012 consideration. His noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) had much greater experience than himself in matters of this kind, but he (the Lord Chancellor) doubted whether there ever was an instance in which, when a Bill introduced by the Government had been brought up with Amendments from the other House, a Member who opposed such Bill had moved at once that the consideration of the Amendments should be postponed. His noble Friend certainly gave notice that when the Divorce Bill came up he would move that the Amendments should be taken into consideration at a future time; but, knowing the candour which characterized his noble Friend, he (the Lord Chancellor) thought his intention was to bring forward that Motion when the Amendments came before their Lordships in the ordinary course. It was true the terms of his noble Friend's notice entitled him to propose the Motion at the time he did, but according to the usual course of proceeding it could not have received such a construction.
§ LORD REDESDALEsaid, he must remind their Lordships that when he first addressed the House on Friday on the Motion for adjournment, no notice had been given for considering the Commons' Amendments on Monday or on any other day. He was only doing his duty to the House in remarking on this omission, for a great surprise would have taken place if the Amendments had been brought under consideration without any notice appearing on the Minutes among the Orders of the Day. With regard to what had fallen from the noble Earl opposite and the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, he (Lord Redesdale) thought he had reason to complain of the tone in which he had been addressed the other night. When he found his notice had not been understood, as he intended it should, he consented to postpone his Motion till Monday, and he must say he thought he had not experienced that courtesy from the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack and the noble Earl which every Peer had a right to expect—namely, that he should receive credit for being actuated by honourable motives until the contrary was shown to be the case. If the noble Lords to whom he had referred had calmly stated that his notice had been misunderstood by them, and in their opinion by the House generally, and he had then refused to withdraw it, the language used would have had more excuse; but before anything in his conduct justified 2013 them in doing so, when he had only remarked on the impropriety of adjourning without fixing a day for the consideration of the Amendments, they certainly addressed him in language which he had felt, and which, is a gentleman, he could not but feel.
LORD CAMPBELLwas understood to say that the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) had been solemnly warned on Friday night that the general impression among Members of their Lordships' House was that his Motion would not be brought forward until the following Monday. Having great respect for his noble Friend, he (Lord Campbell) earnestly implored him to abstain from pressing the Motion; but the noble Lord persisted in his intention.
§ LORD REDESDALEI had not made, and did not make the Motion.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, certainly the Motion was not made, but the adjournment was objected to, and he had been surprised that after the noble Lord was informed the debate would be taken on Monday, and that his Motion was understood to apply to Monday, he had persisted in the course he pursued. There was no doubt that the noble Lord conscientiously believed that he was regular; but certainly he had no reason to regret the course he finally adopted, for if he had persisted in his original purpose, and had thrown out the Bill by that manœuvre, he would have done what in the law was called "snapping" a judgment, which was always set aside with indignation by the Courts until further inquiry was made.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHwas indisposed to refer to what passed in private conversation, but he must say the tone and language of some of the noble Lords on the ministerial side were such as he had never before heard in that House. His noble Friend would have treated them as they deserved if he had persisted in going on with his Amendment.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, he certainly never witnessed in their Lordships' House such a scene as that which had been referred to. It exceeded anything he had ever observed in the wildest days of the House of Commons. The raising of the hands, the ejaculations by the noble Lords opposite, and the cry of "This is the Chairman of Committees," were more worthy of another place than the highest assembly in the land.