HL Deb 20 February 1857 vol 144 cc927-30

EARL STANHOPE moved, according to notice, for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider whether any and what improvements could be effected in printing the Minutes and Journals of the House. Their Lordships were under very great obligation to his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees (Lord Redesdale) for having already effected some considerable improvement in their publications, a great assistance in the same object had also been afforded by the able and zealous Gentlemen who sat at the table. The Minutes—or as in the other House they were termed the Votes—might in several points be deemed superior to those Votes of the other House, and especially in the clearer and more perfect view they presented in the issue of each day, of the business with which their Lordships had to deal. But still, he must say, there were, on the other hand, some defects and anomalies in the manner of preparing the Minutes well deserving their Lordships' attention with the view to a remedy, and which would not be overlooked by a Committee in the event of the House consenting to grant one. For instance, in the case of a Motion being submitted to their Lordships which was not carried the name of the Mover was withheld, while in the case of a Motion which was assented to the name of the Mover was recorded. Then, again, in some Motions as for the appointment of a Committee the name of the Mover was not published, while in others, as for the production of papers, it was published. But these were trifles on which he would not dwell. The main object of his Motion had reference to the numbers and names of Peers at divisions of the House being recorded in the Journals and Minutes, which at present was not done. As to the numbers, if their Lordships searched the Journals and Minutes from the first day of any Session to the last they would find no trace whatever of any single division on any subject which had come under the consideration of the House, and on which they had differed. The numbers on a division were not given; there was a mere statement on every Motion that their Lordships had resolved in the negative or the affirmative, as the case might be, and, for anything that appeared on the Minutes, any person might conclude that their Lordships had decided, one way or the other, unanimously. He submitted that that was a very unsatisfactory arrangement, and that the Minutes would be much more complete if they showed, at least, the numbers which appeared on a division. No reason whatever could be found for withholding the numbers from the Minutes and Journals except the bygone notion of a former age, now altogether inapplicable, that a House of Parliament ought to refrain from making known the divisions within its walls, and should endeavour to exhibit to the public a perfectly unanimous appearance. Again, as to taking the names of Peers on a division, he had the authority of the Speaker of the other House for saying, that not one moment of time was lost in taking the names of Members; and he would ask, was there any valid reason or constitutional ground why the names on a division should be given in the Votes of the House of Commons and withheld, on a similar occasion, in the Minutes of their Lordships' House? He submitted, as to individual Peers, that the country had a right to have authentic materials before them for estimating the services of every public man in their Lordships' House, and that, with that view, as a part of the duty they owed to the public, it was right and fitting that the Minutes should supply the names of their Lordships who took part in every division. But, further still, the names were already supplied, through the newspapers, but how? Incorrectly, with constant errors or omissions, and that not through any fault in the noble Lord, who now compiled the list, but from the unavoidable deficiencies of the system at present pursued. The real question was, therefore, not whether the names should be given or not given, but whether they should be given accurately or inaccurately. He thought it was an additional argument in favour of the arrangement he was urging on their Lordships that already the names of Peers who attended the House every day were regularly entered upon the Journals of the House. It was not very often that any use, historical or political, was found to attend these lists, but some such cases of utility did occur. Seeing in his place his noble Friend the Lord Chief Justice, he might, as an instance of the occasional value of this system, allude to perhaps the most remarkable scene which had occurred either in this or the other House of Parliament—what was generally called the dying scene of Lord Chatham. There was in existence a letter of Lord Camden describing this scene, in which it was said that all the Peers put on the appearance of deep distress, "except only the Earl of M——, who sat still, almost as much unmoved as the senseless body itself." Now, then, who was this Earl of M——? On reference to the Journals of the House, it was shown that only two Earls of M——were present (Lord Marchmont and Lord Mansfield); which of these Peers was the one referred to remained to be determined; but his noble Friend the Lord Chief Justice, in his Lives of the Chancellors, had in his (Earl Stanhope's) opinion, clearly shown that the Peer referred to was Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, the old rival of Chatham, even in their House of Commons' days. This showed the value of the records of the House in an historical point of view. But he wished to render them still more useful than now. He wished to show not only what Peers came to the House, but what they did when they came there. He wished to secure the publication of the names of those Peers who took part in the divisions. He was as jealous as any man of the honour and privileges of their Lordships, but he thought this innovation would be productive of nothing but good. It might render necessary some difference in the mode of voting, but it would certainly involve no additional consumption of time. The noble Earl concluded by moving— That a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether any, and if any, what improvements can be effected in the Printing of the Minutes and Journals of the House, and especially as to putting upon Record both the Numbers and the Names of the Lords who take part in the Divisions.

EARL GRANVILLE

expressed his entire concurrence in the views to which his noble Friend had given expression, and thought that, having regard both to the honour of this House and the utility of its proceedings, it was impossible to give too great publicity to those proceedings. The subject was one which hardly required inquiry; but at the same time he thought the noble Earl had taken a wise course in moving for the appointment of a Select Committee, which in a very short time indeed, and without going into much evidence, would be enabled to come to a satisfactory conclusion. He would, therefore, readily assent to the Motion.

Motion agreed to; Committee named.