66 Tower, and a week afterwards was released on a motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the effect that "he had entirely submitted himself to the House, and expressed his sorrow and regret for his offence, and had already suffered in his health." The fees paid by the offender amounted to 141.; the fee for arrest or caption money" being 5l., the orders for committal and release 17. each, and 17. per day during the imprisonment. Mr. Grissell had betaken himself to Boulogne before the Speaker's warrant could be executed, and a messenger of the Serjeant-at-Arms found him staying at an hotel there under the name of Graham. Knowing that the power of the House to commit an offender or retain him in custody determined with the session, Grissell came to London and surrendered himself to the Serjeant-at-Arms on August 13. On August 14 he was committed to Newgate, to be released the next day, when Parliament was prorogued; but the Speaker explained that, although the prisoner would be released on the prorogation of Parliament, he would be liable to further imprisonment in another session at the pleasure of the House. Two days before the Parliament again met, in February, 1880, Mr. Grissell forwarded to Mr. Walpole, for presentation to the House, a petition praying for its forgiveness. Mr. Walpole did not consider the petition submissive enough, and the matter dropped until the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave notice of a motion referring to the case. Mr. Grissell then forwarded to Mr. Walpole a petition, described by that gentleman as completely submissive, which was presented on the 2nd of March. But the House of Commons was not content with a mere verbal submission. The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved that Mr. Grissell be sent for in the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, and reprimanded at the bar of the House. A strong feeling was expressed, however, that the House should reserve its discretion of dealing with Mr. Grissell as it thought best, until it had him in its custody; the motion, with Sir Stafford Northcote's consent, was amended by the omission of the last clause, and Mr. Grissell was ordered to attend on the following day on the Speaker's warrant in the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms. When he had been brought to the bar, the Speaker addressed him, recapitulating the circumstances of the case, but adding that the House was willing to hear any explanation he might think fit to offer. Mr. Grissell then expressed his "deep regret for his grave offence," and threw himself upon the merciful consideration of the House; after which he was ordered to withdraw. On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seconded by a leading member of the Opposition (Mr. Forster), a resolution was passed to the effect that Mr. Grissell, having previously evaded punishment for his offence, be committed to Newgate; and he was accordingly removed thither. His imprisonment was terminated by the dissolution of Parliament a few days later. 66 EXCLUSION OF STRANGERS. Among the privileges of Parliament," says Sir Erskine May, "none had been more frequently exercised (down to 1782) by both Houses than the exclusion of strangers from their deliberations. Precautions were necessary to prevent confusion; for even so late as 1771 a stranger was counted in a division. When the debates in Parliament began to excite the interest of the public, and to attract an eager audience, the presence of strangers was connived at. They could be dismissed in a moment, at the instance of any member; but the Speaker was not often called upon to enforce the orders of the House." The following are some of the occasions on which this privilege has been exercised :— The Unreported Parliament.-Mr. Wright, in his advertisement to "Cavendish's Debates," referring to the Parliament commonly known by the designation of the "Unreported Parliament," says: "Much regret has often been expressed that the proceedings of the House of Commons during the thirteenth Parliament of Great Britain, which met in May, 1768, and was dissolved in June, 1774, should, in consequence of the strict enforcement of the standing order for the exclusion of strangers from the gallery of the House, have remained nearly a blank in the history of the country." It was known that Sir Henry Cavendish had taken, in shorthand, an account of the debates during that period; and Mr. Wright succeeded in finding it among the Egerton manuscripts. It consists of forty-nine small quarto volumes, and contains notes of all the principal debates which took place during the six sessions of the above-mentioned Parliament. Mutual Exclusion of the Lords and the Commons.-On the 10th of December, 1770, the Duke of Manchester rose in the House of Lords to make a motion relative to preparations for the war with Spain, then believed to be impending, when he was interrupted by Lord Gower, who desired that the house might be cleared. The messengers were already proceeding to clear the house, when several members of the House of Commons, who had been waiting at the bar to bring up a bill, desired to stay for that purpose, but were turned out with the crowd-several peers having gone down to the bar to hasten their withdrawal. They were presently called in again; but the moment they had delivered their message, and before time had been allowed them to withdraw from the bar, an outery arose, and they were literally hooted out of the house. Furious at their indecent treatment, the members hastened back to their own house. The first result of their anger was sufficiently ridiculous. Mr. George Onslow desired the house to be cleared, " peers and all." The only peers below the bar were the very lords who had in vain resisted the exclusion of strangers from their own house, which they had just left in indignation; and now the resentment of the Commons, provoked by others, was first expended upon them. . . Lord Chatham happily expressed his contempt for a senate debating with closed doors. Writing to Colonel Barré on the 22nd of January, 1771, he says, "I take it for granted that the same declaration will be laid before the tapestry on Friday, which will be offered to the live figures in St. Stephen's;" and again on the 25th he writes to Lady Chatham, "Just returned from the tapestry." The mutual exclusion of the members of the two Houses continued to be enforced in a spirit of vindictive retaliation for several years. -May's "Constitutional History." Garrick Hiding Himself in the Gallery.-Mr. Peter Burke relates that in the spring of 1777, Garrick chanced to be present in the gallery of the House of Commons during a debate which produced an altercation between two members, that became so warm as to oblige the Speaker and the House to interpose to prevent a duel. Whilst the assembly was in this agitation, a Shropshire member observed Mr. Garrick sitting in the gallery, and immediately moved to clear the house. Roscius contrived to keep himself concealed, and avoided the consequence of the illiberal motion. But when the same gentleman, the day after, harangued the House on the impropriety of suffering players to hear the debates, Mr. Burke arose and appealed to the honourable assembly whether it could possibly be consistent with the rules of decency and liberality to exclude from the hearing of their debates a man to whom they were all obliged-one who was the great master of eloquence-in whose school they had all imbibed the art of speaking, and been taught the elements of rhetoric. For his part, he owned that he had been greatly indebted to his instructions. Much more he said in commendation of Mr. Garrick, and was warmly seconded by Mr. Fox and Mr. Thomas Townsend. Mction by Mr. John O'Connell.-The questions of privilege and the presence of strangers in the house were raised on the 18th May, 1849, by the member for Limerick, Mr. John O'Connell, who spoke as follows: "Having seen in the Times newspaper another breach of the privileges of this House, by a report of the last discussion upon the Parliamentary Oaths Bill, in which report not only were the rules of the House violated, but the arguments of some Catholic members were entirely omitted, whilst the arguments against them were duly reported, I shall to-night, when the discussion upon the Parliamentary Oaths Bill comes before the House, endeavour to ascertain if there be strangers present, and if I find that to be the case, I shall draw the attention of the House to that fact." Later on the same night, when the House went into committee on the bill referred to, Mr. J. O'Connell, in pursuance of his notice, directed the attention of the chairman (Mr. Bernal) towards the reporters' gallery, and said, "Sir, I perceive that there are strangers in that gallery." The chairman having given the order, all strangers present were excluded. Motion by Colonel Thompson to Alter the Rule.—In consequence of the exclusion of strangers by the member for Limerick, Colonel Thompson, on the 24th May, 1849, moved "That this House will take into its consideration the rule or practice whereby strangers have been excluded on the motion of any single member, with a view to alter the same; so that a motion for the exclusion of strangers shall be made and seconded, and question thereupon be put, as is the practice with other motions." The motion was, however, negatived. Mr. J. O'Connell, on the 8th of June, again caused the galleries to be cleared of strangers. The circumstance is thus given in " Hansard " :-The Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill was about to be considered in committee when Mr. O'Connell said: "Sir, after the specimen of fairness which I experienced when I was going to express my opinion on the Poor Law just before the last division, there is but one course left me,-either to insist on the House enforcing justice to its members, or by doing away with an absurd practice; and therefore, Sir, I see strangers present" (waving his hat towards the reporters' gallery). Strangers were immediately ordered to withdraw. Motion by Mr. Crawfurd.—On the 24th of April, 1870, Mr. W. Fowler, the member for Cambridge, asked leave to bring in a bill for the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts. Mr. Crawfurd, member for the Ayr Burghs, then called the attention of the Speaker to the fact that there were strangers in the house. The Times gives the following report of what took place thereupon:-" This unusual proceeding caused some commotion. Honourable members turned towards Mr. Crawfurd, inquiring whether he intended to insist on the point of order he had raised; others looked to the Speaker, awaiting his order to the officers to clear the galleries; and in this interval of suspense Mr. Bouverie rose and said, if the honourable member persisted in calling attention to the presence of strangers, they must be ordered to leave. The Speaker was understood to suggest that on reconsideration the honourable member might not wish to insist on excluding strangers. He then said, very slowly, 'Does the honourable member persist? Strangers must——— ’ Several honourable members exclaimed Withdraw! withdraw!' Mr. Bouverie: There is no motion.' The Speaker: 'Does the honourable member persist ?' Mr. Crawfurd: 'I do, sir.' The Speaker: The galleries must be cleared.' The officers proceeded to clear the Speaker's and the strangers' galleries, and the reporters withdrew from their gallery." It is deserving of remark, and perhaps may be considered as a sort of apology to the reporters for their share in the general exclusion, that on being re-admitted to their gallery they were greeted with a burst of cheering from the House. On the 20th of July, 1870, it is recorded in "Hansard," the debate on the Contagious Diseases Acts was resumed, and, as on the previous discussion, Mr. Crawfurd called the attention of the Speaker to the presence of strangers, whereupon they were ordered to withdraw. Alteration of the Rule.-On the 27th of April, 1875, the galleries were crowded with members and visitors anxious to hear a debate on the export of horses, brought on by Mr. Chaplin; but before this gentleman could rise to propose his motion, Mr. Biggar, member for Cavan, called the Speaker's attention to the presence of strangers. In the peers' gallery at the time, the Prince of Wales was seated, with many members of the Upper House (Mr. Biggar, however, afterwards disclaimed knowledge of this fact), and amongst other distinguished personages was the German ambassador. The Speaker pointedly asked the honourable gentleman whether he intended to take notice of the strangers, and receiving an affirmative answer, immediately ordered the galleries to be cleared, which was done, the ladies only being allowed to remain. Then ensued a scene of much excitement. The Prime Minister (Mr. Disraeli) rose and said, "I regret that the House is called upon by the act of the honourable gentleman to take a step which brings discredit upon the House. The honourable gentleman should remember that this House is an assembly of gentlemen,* and it has not been the practice of gentlemen to take the step which he has adopted, unless there has been some strong and imperious public necessity to justify it. No reason has been assigned for the extraordinary course he has adopted; a course calculated to discredit the House, and I think I am justified in saying that it is repugnant to the general-I might almost say the unanimous-feeling of the House. (General cheering.) Under these circumstances I feel it necessary to move that the standing order relative to the admission of strangers be suspended during the sitting of the House." The motion was seconded by the leader of the Opposition (the Marquis of Hartington), and Mr. Biggar, having been called upon by other members to state his reasons for his extraordinary proceeding, declared that he desired to amend the unsatisfactory relations of the Press in regard to the House,† and should pursue a similar course every evening until an alteration was made in the rules relating to strangers and reporters. Other Irish members warmly repudiated his action, as tending to bring discredit upon themselves, and one (Mr. Bryan) told the honourable gentleman that he should remember it was the duty of a representative to be first a gentleman and next a patriot. The motion for suspension of the standing order was carried unanimously, and, strangers being re-admitted, the first who took his seat was the Prince of Wales. A week afterwards the Marquis of Hartington brought forward resolutions intended to recognise formally the reporting of debates, &c., unless such reports were expressly forbidden, and also the presence of strangers under ordinary circumstances; but during the debate on this motion, the galleries were again cleared on the demand of Mr. Sullivan. The debate was adjourned until the 31st of May, when the Marquis of Hartington's resolutions were rejected, and the following, proposed by Mr. Disraeli, was eventually adopted: That if at any sitting of the House or of a Committee any member shall take notice of the presence of strangers, Mr. Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, shall forthwith put the question without debate or amendment; provided that Mr. Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, may, whenever he thinks fit, order the withdrawal of strangers from any part of the house." First Application of the New Rule.—In April, 1878, the rule thus passed was applied under peculiar circumstances. Mr. O'Donnell rose to propose a resolution censuring the action of the Government in Donegal, consequent upon the recent murder of Lord Leitrim; and his remarks gave rise to much interruption. Mr. King-Harman "spied strangers," and the question that they be ordered to withdraw was then put by the Speaker without debate, and carried by 57 to 12. The reporters' and other galleries were cleared about half-past nine, and not reopened until half-past twelve, the proceedings within the House meanwhile, it was understood, having been of a turbulent character. * "St. Stephen takes not from St. Giles his art, -Lytton's "St. Stephen's." See The Commons and the Press in 1875," page 567. |