§ MR. HICKSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has 1786 been drawn to the fact that, on Monday May 19th, there were thirty-six Orders on the Paper, of which twenty-six were Government Orders; and, on Thursday, May 22nd, twenty-eight Orders, of which twenty-one were Government Orders; and, whether he will, with a view to the convenience of the House, and to the reduction in the cost of printing, consider the propriety of limiting the Government Orders (involving, as they frequently do, a great number of amendments) to such measures as they really purpose, and have reasonable expectation of being able, to bring forward?
MR. GLADSTONEI rather presume that the Question of the hon. Gentleman refers to our having before the House a larger number of Bills than we can expect to pass. I am not quite sure whether that is the intention of the Question. If it is so, no doubt, at a certain period of the Session, it is the practice for the Government to consider its position, and endeavour to relieve the Order Book of such measures as it thinks it has no reasonable hope of passing. Beyond that I cannot go at the present time, because that period of the Session has not arrived; and I do not think, until we have made considerable further progress with the Representation of the People Bill, that we should be in a position to say anything on the subject. The hon. Member also referred to the practice of adjourning Orders for only a short time. That is a question of considerable difficulty; because it does sometimes, though very rarely, happen that the House, which usually labours under a plethora of Business, finds itself, owing to the sudden disappearance of the principal subject of the night, with a famine of Business, and the House naturally resents a contingency of that kind very much. I recognize the excellent intention of the Question of the hon. Member, and I quite think it is not right to place on the Order Book for any given night a number of measures which there is no hope of proceeding with.