HC Deb 30 March 1843 vol 68 cc150-2
Mr. Hume

would take this opportunity of referring to the subject of the motion of which he had given notice, with regard to the Washington treaty. He had on a former evening given notice of his intention to fix the discussion on this question for Tuesday next; he had endeavoured to learn whether it were possible that any day between this and the Easter holidays could be devoted to this discussion, but he found that every day was already occupied. The noble Lord who had fixed a motion for Tuesday next had declined to give up that day; the hon. Member for Liskeard was determined to bring on his motion on Thursday, and on that day there were nine notices on the paper. Unless the right hon. Baronet opposite allowed him precedence on Monday, he should be unable to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice. The estimates were fixed for that evening, but they had been a long time before the House, and it might be hoped that hon. Members would not be disposed to discuss them any further. He, therefore, appealed to the right hon. Baronet to allow him to bring on his motion on Monday. It was a subject of immediate interest, which he thought ought not to be postponed beyond Easter.

Sir R. Peel

With the consent of the House, two days were set apart for the transaction of the business of the Government— Monday and Friday—and they were scarcely sufficient for the purpose of getting through the business, which, for the general interest, it was essential should be transacted. Those days were, therefore, in the nature of a public trust, vested in the hands of the Government. He well knew what inconvenience arose from postponing the Government business until a late period of the Session: by such a course, it became impossible to transact the business of the Government properly. Bills were postponed year after year, by reason of the impossibility of discussing them satisfactorily. It was the wish, therefore, of the Government to take advantage of the two days set apart for their use, and so long as there was public business to go through, it was his duty to retain them for that purpose. He knew well that if he gave way in one instance, he must do so in many; and that if he allowed the management of the public business to be interfered with by private considerations, in one case, he must do so in all, or be placed in the invidious position of opposing the wishes of one hon. Member, and giving his assent to the proposition of another. On the motion for going into Committee of Supply, hon. Members had the power to move amendments; it was true that that power was exercised sparingly; he had always protested against its use, and few hon. Members acted upon it. If he gave way in this instance, other hon. Members to whom he might refuse the same privilege, might be disposed to take advantage of the right which they possessed. The hon. Member stood on the same footing with other hon. Gentlemen, and he could not assent to the request which he had made, even although the motion of which he had given notice, was one which he intend- ed to support. Let the hon. Gentleman fix his motion for any of the Government days, and if there was time when the other business had been transacted, it might come on.

Mr. Hume

hoped that the right hon. Baronet would be convinced that this was a case which would never occur again. This was a resumed debate: what he now proposed as a separate motion would have been moved as an amendment on the original motion of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston). The debate was closed by the House being counted out, and the motion was not new matter, but a renewal only of that which had been partly discussed. He should fix his motion for Friday week, and take the chance of its coming on.

Sir R. Peel

The hon. Member sitting near the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. S. Crawford), could inform the hon. Gentleman that the counting out of the House might take place upon other questions than that of the Washington treaty.

Back to