SESSIONAL ORDERS. (Hansard, 23 January 1846)

§ MR. CARDWELL
moved the adoption of the usual Sessional Orders, which were read seriatim from the Chair.

MR. WILLIAMS
thought it necessary to remark that that Sessional Order came before the House annually, and yet the House had taken no steps to carry out their own Standing Order. Before they passed it they should see how far their privileges were infringed upon in the point to which it referred, and take some steps for the purpose of enforcing their orders. It was notorious to every well-informed man in the country, that they were continually and regularly violated. It was well known that in that House there were many Members elected by the influence of Peers. In many counties there were three or four influential Peers possessing large estates; and any man of information could tell how the elections would turn by knowing what candidates these Peers would support. Last night, Gentlemen who had spoken against the propositions of Her Majesty's Government threw out a challenge to go to a general election by way of testing the opinions of the country. How did they expect to carry out their intentions of gaining strength in that House except by the influence of the Peers? They well knew that without the Peers, they could not hope to defeat the Government. They well knew that the whole mass of the people of the country would support at a general election the liberal propositions made by Her Majesty's Government. For the sake of the character of the House they should not pass those Sessional Orders, without taking some measures for enforcing them when it was so well known that they were continually violated.

§ SIR R. INGLIS
The House had from time to time passed the rules to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, to prevent a Peer from interfering with the election of Members of Parliament; but the hon. Gentleman was not content with objecting to the proposition as voted, but wished to prevent, by more stringent means, the still further interference of noblemen with the election of Members of Parliament. Was he prepared to disfranchise a Peer of that hereditary right which he enjoyed in common with his fellow subjects, of voting for the election of Members of Parliament? Was he prepared to establish a maximum scale, and to say that a large landowner ought not to interfere with elections, and that this privilege should be left to the 40s. freeholder created by the Reform Bill? The hon. Member ought to recollect that the 129 privilege which he desired to neutralise, so far as one part of the community was concerned, was conferred by that very Act to which the Members of that House owed their seats. The hon. Member should have endeavoured to procure the abrogation of the principle when the Reform Bill was under discussion. The hon. Member wished to go much further than the Sessional Orders, and prevent every landowner from interfering in any way with elections—a rule which, considering their great stake, would be both arbitrary and unjust. He might not see sufficient reason for retaining the Order, but he saw no reason at all why it should now be either abrogated or rendered more stringent.

MR. WILLIAMS
objected to the proposed arrangement. On the Wednesday nights the business was open to Members generally, and Bills were taken in their various stages. Motions on the Wednesdays were taken in the order in which they appeared upon the Paper, whilst on the contrary, on the nights of which Government had the control, when there frequently appeared thirty or forty Notices, any Member of the Government might upset the order, and bring any one he chose forward first. He might take the first order last, or the last first. That was a very great inconvenience to the Members of the House. He himself had often waited until three o'clock in the morning for his turn, and if he chanced to turn his back or leave the House for a moment, his business might be called on and passed by. What he had to suggest was, that Her Majesty's Government should consent to take the Orders of the Day on Mondays and Fridays in the order in which they stood upon the list. He was aware of the difficulties which surrounded the right hon. Baronet opposite in regulating the Orders; but if they were taken in rotation, he thought it would tend to the great convenience of the House.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
thought that the course hitherto adhered to was the best. There were frequently thirty or forty Orders of the Day on the list, and they could not adopt the course of taking them in the order in which they stood. It would be impossible to set them down in the order in which they should be taken; but he would have no objection to stating, on the 130 day before that for which they stood, which of the list the Government wished to give precedence to, as he was desirous of giving every possible facility.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
observed, that the course adopted by him was always to give notice of the Orders of the Day which should take precedence. He thought it would not be a good arrangement if the Government were obliged to take the Orders in the course in which they were set down; for it then might happen that the one for the advancement of which there was no pressing necessity for despatch, might be brought on, whilst some measure of much greater interest and consequence would be left by. He had no observation to make upon the Order, except to suggest that during the ensuing Session on Wednesdays the House should sit at twelve o'clock in the day for the despatch of business. There would then be a greater likelihood that they would have an attendance of Members than in the evening.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
had expressed a wish, in the course of the last Session, that the course proposed by the noble Lord who had just sat down should be adopted. He wished the House to sit from twelve o'clock to six. He thought that such an arrangement would be the best.

§ MR. WAKLEY
must say that he thought the arrangement most objectionable; and nothing could be more unwise or more likely to be detrimental to the public interest. If he understood the arrangement correctly, independent Members of the House, who had measures to advance which were not supported by the Government, or in which the Government were not interested, were to assemble on a Wednesday at twelve o'clock, and pursue their labours until six in the evening; and after that period the Government were to be at liberty to bring in their measures. Then he was to understand that the House would rise at six. And the usual dinners were to be enjoyed after that hour.

§ SIR R. H. INGLIS
objected to the proposed arrangement on many grounds. He understood that from twelve to six on Wednesdays was to be devoted to Private Business, or rather business that was not connected with the Government. Now his noble Friend had, within the last half-hour, given notice of one of the most important Motions which could be brought under the consideration of the House; and if it was the intention of Ministers to absent themselves from the House on a Wednesday, 131 such important Motions as those, for instance, with respect to charitable endowments, might be brought on and disposed of in their absence, and the question decided when, perhaps, there would not be more than forty Members present. For this and for other reasons, he certainly objected to any alterations being made in the existing Sessional Order.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
did not see why it should be supposed that the Members of Her Majesty's Government would be necessarily absent. He believed that no hon. Member of the House had been more regularly in attendance than his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department; and in case of a Motion of the importance alluded to by the hon. Baronet being brought forward, the Members of Her Majesty's Government would certainly take care to be present.