(Vol. ii., pp. 17. 83.)
Mr. Ross is right in saying that "no alteration has taken place in the
_practice_ of the House of Commons with respect to the admission of
strangers." The practice was at variance with the old sessional order:
it is consistent with the new standing order of 1845. I do not
understand how any one can read these words of the new standing order,
"that the sergeant-at-arms ... do take into his custody any stranger
whom he may see ... in any part of the house or gallery appropriated to
the members of the House: and also any stranger _who, having been
admitted into any other part of the house or gallery_," &c., and say
that the House of Commons does not now recognise the presence of
strangers; nor can I understand how Mr. Ross can doubt that the old
sessional order absolutely prohibited their presence. It did not keep
them out certainly, for they were admitted in the teeth of it; but so
long as that sessional order was in force, prohibition to strangers was
the theory.
Mr. Ross refers to publication of speeches. Publication is still
prohibited in theory. Mr. Ross perhaps is not aware that the prohibition
of publication of speeches rests on a foundation independent of the old
sessional order against the presence of strangers,--on a series of
resolutions declaring publication to be a breach of the privileges of
Parliament, to be found in the Journals of 1642, 1694, 1695, 1697, 1703,
1722, and 1724.
We unfortunately cannot settle in your columns whether, as Mr. Ross
asserts, "if a member in debate should inadvertently allude to the
possibility of his observations being heard by a stranger, the Speaker
would immediately call him to order;" but my strong belief is, that he
would not: and I hope, if there are any members of the House of Commons
who have time to read "Notes and Queries," that one of them may be
induced to take a suitable opportunity of obtaining the Speaker's
judgment.
"Yet at other times," Mr. Ross goes on to say, "the right honourable
gentlemen will listen complacently to discussions arising out of the
complaints of members that strangers will not publish to the world all
that they hear pass in debate." If this be so, I suppose the Speaker
sees nothing disorderly in a complaint, that what has been spoken in
Parliament has _not_ been published: but I read frequently in my
newspaper that the Speaker interrupts {125} members who speak of
speeches having been published. "This is one of the inconsistencies,"
Mr. Ross proceeds, "resulting from the determination of the House not
expressly to recognise the presence of strangers." Inconsistency there
certainly is,--the inconsistency of making publication a breach of
privilege, and allowing it to go on daily.
As strangers may be admitted into the House to hear debates, and not
allowed to publish what they hear, so they may he admitted, subject to
exclusion at certain times, or when the House chooses. And this is the
case. The House, of course, retains the power of excluding them at any
moment. They are always made to withdraw before the House goes to a
division. This is a matter of practice, founded probably on some
supposed reasons of convenience. Again, on any member desiring strangers
to be excluded, the Speaker desires them to withdraw, without allowing
any discussion.
I have only to notice one other observation of Mr. Ross's, which is the
following:
"When I speak of strangers being admitted, it must not be
supposed that this was done by order of the House. No,
everything relating to the admission of strangers to, and their
accommodation in the House of Commons, is effected by some
mysterious agency, for which no one is directly responsible. Mr.
Barry has built galleries for strangers in the new house; but if
the matter were made a subject of inquiry, it probably would
puzzle him to state under what authority he has acted."
I do not think there is anything mysterious as regards admission. I am
fond of hearing the debates, and my parliamentary friends are very kind
to me. Sometimes I content myself with an order from a member, which
takes me into the hinder seats of the non-reporting strangers' gallery;
sometimes, when I know beforehand of an interesting debate, I get one of
my friends to put my name on the "Speaker's list," and I then take my
seat on one of the two front rows of the strangers' gallery; sometimes,
again, I go down on the chance, while the House is sitting; and if I am
fortunate enough to find any one of any friends there, he generally
brings me, in a few moments, an order from the Sergeant-at-arms, which
takes me also to the front row of the strangers' gallery. Some benches
under the strangers' gallery are reserved for peers, ambassadors, and
peers' eldest sons. The Speaker and the Sergeant-at-arms give permission
generally to foreigners, and sometimes to some other persons, to sit in
these benches. I do not know which officer of the House of Commons
superintends the admission of reporters. Ladies are admitted to the
Black Hole assigned to them, by orders from the Sergeant-at-arms. I have
no doubt that the Speaker and Sergeant-at-arms are responsible to the
House for everything relating to the admission of strangers, and without
taking upon myself to say what is the authority under which Mr. Barry
has acted, I have no doubt that, in building galleries for strangers in
the new house, he has done what is consistent not only with the long
established practice, but, under the new order of 1845, with the theory
of the House of Commons.
As regards the passage quoted by Mr. Jackson from the _Edinburgh
Review_, the reviewer would probably allow that he had overlooked the
new standing order of 1845; and Mr. Jackson will perceive that the
recognition of the presence of strangers does not legalise the
publication of speeches. The supposed difficulty in the way of
legalising publication is, that the House of Commons would then make
itself morally responsible for the publication of any libellous matter
in speeches. I do not see the force of this difficulty. But the
expediency of the existing rule is not a proper subject for discussion
in your columns.