The Sun.
London, England, 1870-06-02 00:00:00

THE EXCLUSION OF STRANGERS.
The public has been startled rather than offended by
the exclusion of " strangers" from the House of Commons
the other day, at the instance of Mr. Craufurd. Pub-
licity rules supreme in our legislative and judicial pro-
ceedings, and there is such a confidence that it will con-
tinue so to rule that even an extraordinary exercise of
privilege fails to give the least alarm. Mr. Craufurd
tells us candidly that his object was to exclude reporters
as well as other " strangers," and to prevent any record
of an unsavoury discussion being preserved by the press.
But we feel confident that, even though reporters may
continue to keep their seats at the sole discretion of M.r
Craufurd or any other fastidious senator, they will not often
be disturbed. In the present day such a power as this can
only be permitted to exist by being kept practically
in abeyance. There is no class which has not a positive
and immediate interest in publicity. The constituents
desire to know what their members are doing, and the
members themselves have a great objection to hide their
their light under a bushel. There is no one who enters
Parliament but hopes in some way to distinguish himself.
If not capable of long and eloquent harangues, he may
gain the ear of the House by pithy remarks, and come to
have it told in his borough thathe has more sense in him
than 'a score of talkers. He may be expert at asking
questions which are inconvenient to answer, and which
obviously irritate the Government. He may be an excel-
lent man on a committee, and two or three weeks of hard
work may have been repaid by a complimentary
speech from the Minister, which the local press
duly publishes among his friends and foes. Is it likely
that members who have this common interest would
acquiesce in the exclusion of the reporters if it recurred even
so seldom as to be described by the word " occasional ?"
As for the leading men who form the opinion of the
House, the Press preserves their speeches in an almost
perfect form, and they know that any suspension, even
for a night or two, of the record which is thus produced
would expose them to endless misunderstanding and mis-
representation. These considerations detract from the
practical importance of the discussion which Mr. Henley
originated on Monday night. There are excellent reasons
for believing that the exclusion of " strangers " will be
rather more rare in the future than in the past, and of
the past we have accurate information. For the last in-
stance in which the power possessed by a single member
was exercised we must go back 21 years. A child who
was unborn on the day when the attention of the Speaker
was last called to the presence of "strangers" might
have taken his seat as a member when
Mr. Crauford cleared the House the other day.
It was on the 18th of May, 1849, that Mr. John
O'Connell, in a general fit of spleen against the Parlia-
ment, Press, and people of England, took the opportunity
of annoying them all 'by shutting out Reporters. There
was nothing in the subject to suggest privacy. The House
was engaged in debating the Parliamentary Oaths Bill,
and Mr. John O'Connell had on a former occasion
delivered !a speech upon it which he considered had not
been reported at .such length as its own merits and its
author's reputation, personal and hereditary, demanded ;
so he called attention to " strangers," and the Reporters
were excluded for about two hours, during which time it
is believed that Mr. John O'Connell inflicted on the
House an oration more than usually intolerable. At any
rate, he gained for himself no credit in the House or out
of it, and his unfitness for the position to which he fancied
he had a right to succeed was demonstrated
to the conviction of every priest and peasant
in Ireland. On that occasion a committee was
appointed, as Mr. Gladstone told the House on
Monday night, and its decision was that, as the usage had
prevailed from a very early period of our Parliamentary
history, while in instances in which the power had been
exercised had been very rare, there was not, in the
opinion of the Committee, sufficient ground for making
an alteration in the existing practice. The decision was
unanimous, and it must, be allowed that the event has
justified its prudent conservatism. If " strangers " were
certain not to be again excluded before the year 1891, we
might be content to leave things as they are. Undoubt-
edly, however, there is something unreasonable in the
possession by a single member of such an extraordinary
psowr. A privilege which the House maintains for its
own independence and the benefit of the State may be
perverted at will into an insult to itself and the country
by any one of 658 men. Mr. Craufurd had a show of
reason on his side, Mr. John O'Connell hadnone ; but each
was completely despotic, and must have been obeyed though
every one else might differ from him. In fact, this
usage comes down from a time when the proceedings of
the Houses of Parliament were for the most part really
secret. It is only in quite recent times that the publica-
tion of speeches has been even tolerated. The theory that
the reporters are present without the knowledge of the
House used to be consistent with the actual fact, for the
reports were made almost surreptitiously by persons who
had no recognised position. They were furnished some-
times from the memory of members or of officers of the
House ; they were published timidly, with many blanks
and dashes ; and every now and then a printer was
brought to the bar to answer for some want of judicious
reticence. The right of each member to speak in private
if he pleased was unquestioned by the House, and this,
more than any reason of State policy, seems to have been
the princinle of the usage. It is worthy of inquiry
whether tfie time has not (come when the rule might be
modified. No one will ask that the right to debate in
secret should be abandoned by the House of Commons. In
cases of great danger to the State a secret session might
be a neccessity. If a foreign army were on the shores
of Kent, or a mutinous fleet at the Nore, Parlia-
ment might act more swiftly and effectively with-
out publicity. An inquiry into a great disaster while war
was in actual progress might also possibly be more con-
veniently made in private. Thus, on the occasion of Lord
Porchester's motion relating to the Walcheren expedi-
tion, Mr. Yorke caused "strangers " to be excluded on
the 2nd of February, 1810. But the act caused a great
ferment among the Opposition, Mr. Sheridan being con-
spicuous in his denunciation of this attempt to shield the
Ministry. Allowing, however, the expediency of secret
debates on occasion, though, of course, there can be little
real secrecy when a matter is known to more than 600
men, it does certainly seem that the House of Commons
should have the opportunity of deciding foritself whether
" strangers " should be excluded or not. There would
be nothing unjust in providing that a member who de-
sires to exclude "strangers " should make a motion on
the subject, and take the decision of the House. If it be
said that there may arise matters personal to members or
others with regard to which it is fitting that less than a
majority of the House should have the right to exclude,
then the power might be given to such a proportion of
the House as might be thought convenient—either a fixed
number, as forty, or a definite proportion, as a fourth or
a third. But the veto on reporting enforced by a single
member can hardly be regarded as reasonable on any prin-
ciple recogniseed in the present day.—Times.