HC Deb 05 February 1849 vol 102 cc229-57
LORD JOHN RUSSELL

rose for the purpose of moving the Sessional Resolutions; and as it was proposed to adopt some alterations in them, at the suggestion of the Committee which sat last year on the despatch of public business, he would take the liberty of saying a few words in Introducing the Motion to the notice of the House. The first resolution was that which had been in operation in former years, giving Orders of the Day precedence of Notices of Motion on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays; and to this resolution he believed no objection would be offered. The 2nd and 3rd Resolutions, giving Mr. Speaker power to direct the Orders of the Day to be read at the proper time without any question being put, and the orders to be disposed of in the order in which they stood on the Paper, the right being reserved to Her Majesty's Ministers of placing Government orders at the head of the list on the days when Government Bills had precedence, had both been adopted last Session, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume); and he did not know that any complaint had been made as to their working. He did not, therefore, think it necessary to make any observations with reference to them. The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Resolutions had been likewise in operation for some years, and did not, he believed, require any particular notice. The 9th Resolution was one that had been agreed to by the Committee on Public Business of last Session, and was to the effect— 9. Resolved—That when any Bill shall be presented by a Member, in pursuance of an Order of this House, or shall be brought from the Lords, the Questions 'That this Bill be now read a first time,' and 'That the Bill be printed,' shall be decided without Amendment or Debate. That was also a resolution which he hoped would not be objected to, and which tended to facilitate the transaction of public business. The 10th Resolution was— 10. Resolved—That the Committees of Supply, and Ways and Means, shall be fixed for Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and for any other day on which Orders of the Day shall have precedence of Notices of Motions, of which notice shall have been given on the preceding Friday. That was a resolution, the adoption of which, he thought, would be of considerable advantage, without leading to any material inconvenience; and he certainly did not sec why Committees of Supply should be on all occasions limited to three days in the week—namely, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. He hoped, therefore, that this resolution would meet with the approbation of the House. The 11th Resolution was to the effect that— 11. Resolved—That when a Bill or other matter (except Supply or Ways and Means) has been partly considered in Committee, and the Chairman has been directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again, and the House shall have ordered that the Committee shall sit again on a particular day, the Speaker shall, when the Order for the Committee has been read, forthwith leave the Chair without putting any Question, and the House shall thereupon resolve itself into such Committee. It had been found to be a very inconvenient practice, and one that certainly did not tend to the despatch of business, that after the House had resolved, perhaps after considerable debate, to go into Committee on a Bill, and had gone through, he would suppose, some one, two, or three clauses, the House should have again to discuss whether they would go into Committee on the Bill, before the remaining clauses could be considered. That practice had led to great inconvenience and to much interruption of the business of the House; and the only advantage to which it could lead was, he thought, provided for by the words introduced at the end of the resolution, making an exception in case a Member gave notice of an instruction to such Committee. The 12th Resolution was— 12. Resolved—That at the close of the Proceedings of a Committee of the whole House on a Bill, the Chairman shall report the Bill forthwith to the House, and when Amendments shall have been made thereto, the same shall be received without debate, and a time appointed for taking the same into consideration. The object of this resolution was to provide against the inconvenience arising from the practice of considering separately the report on the Bill itself, and on the Amendments made to it; and if the resolution were agreed to, the House would be asked merely to agree, conditionally, to the whole Bill as amended, leaving the further consideration of the Bill to another day. He hoped the resolution would be agreed to, as he regarded the practice of entangling the Amendments made in Committee with the principle of the Bill as one which had led to great inconvenience. The next resolution was one of more importance, and had reference to the question of privileges. But the fact was, that the privileges of that House had been very carefully considered by the Committee, and their suggestions had at first gone much further than the resolution now to be proposed. The Resolution was as follows:— 13. That with respect to any Bill brought to this House from the House of Lords, or returned by the House of Lords to this House, with Amendments, whereby any pecuniary penalty, forfeiture, or fee, shall be authorised, imposed, appropriated, regulated, varied, or extinguished, this House will not insist on its ancient and undoubted privileges in the following cases: 1. When the object of such pecuniary penalty or forfeiture is to secure the execution of the Act, or the punishment or prevention of offences: 2. Where such fees are imposed in respect of benefit taken or service rendered under the Act, and in order to the execution of the Act, and are not made payable into the Treasury or Exchequer, or in aid of the Public Revenue, and do not form the ground of public accounting by the parties receiving the same, either in respect of deficit or surplus: 3. When such Bill shall be a Private Bill for a Local or Personal Act:"— In reference to this resolution he might remark, that his hon. Friend who was Chairman of the Committee of Public Business last year (Mr. Evelyn Denison), had written to him that day, expressing his great regret at being unable to attend in his place in order to give his support to this resolution. The only remaining resolution was the 14th, which provided that after Tuesday the 1st day of May next, Orders of the Day shall have precedence of Notices of Motions on Thursdays, the right being reserved to Her Majesty's Ministers of placing Government Orders at the head of the list, as on Mondays and Fridays. It certainly appeared to him that those who represented the Government in that House were obliged, in the early part of the Session, to labour under great disadvantage, as it had been the custom for many years past—though not in former times—to look to the Government, not only for moving Committees of Supply and of Ways and Means, but also the House expected from them the duty of bringing forward the principal measures of public business. Now, for all those purposes, the Government had only two days of the week at their disposal, while other Members of the House were given three days. That rule had always to be departed from at a late period of the Session; and after the time fixed in the resolution, it was not, he thought, unreasonable that the Government should be allowed three days in each week, as compared with two days allowed for other business. They would also endeavour to attain the object sought for through this resolution by other moans, such as sending a proportionate number of Bills to the House of Lords when they would have a chance of being fairly considered in the Upper House, and pressing forward other measures with as little delay as possible. He believed that the resolutions which he had now the honour to propose would load to the more easy transaction of public business, without at the same time interfering with the power of discussion so necessary in that House; and he would much rather submit them all to the general sense of the House now, at the beginning of the Session, than leave the adoption of each resolution till such time as it would become immediately necessary.

The First Resolution was then read— 1. Resolved—That in the present Session of Parliament all Orders of the Day, set down in the Order-book for Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, shall be disposed of before the House will proceed upon any Motions of which Notices shall have been given.

On the Motion that the Resolution be adopted,

MR. GOULBURN

said, that he thought there were some alterations which might be judiciously introduced into the resolutions, and which would aid in carrying out the object which the noble Lord had in view—that of facilitating the despatch of public business; and it might be more convenient if he were to state the purport of them at that stage, instead of waiting until each resolution was proposed. With regard to the 3rd Resolution, which had been somewhat hastily adopted last Session for the first time, the language of it was, he thought, rather obscure. By it the right was reserved to Her Majesty's Ministers to place Government Orders at the head of the list in the rotation in which they were to be taken, on the days on which Government Bills had precedence; but then the difficulty arose, what was a Government Order, or a Government Bill? Was it intended to apply only to Bills introduced by the Government? He thought it would be desirable to alter the wording of the resolution so as to leave Her Majesty's Ministers at liberty to have all Orders taken in the order in which they were placed on the Paper. The next alteration which he would suggest was in the 10th Resolution, which relates to the appointment of Committees of Supply and of Ways and Means. He believed that the former arrangement had been made in order that Members might know when votes on particular subjects, in which they felt an interest, were likely to come on; but at the same time he (Mr. Goulburn) quite agreed with the noble Lord, that from the practice of discussing notices of Motion on going into Committee of Supply, the Government business was very materially impeded. But he thought that by a slight alteration in the resolution, both objects might be secured. He would suggest that the 10th Resolution should stand as follows:— That the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means may be appointed to sit on any Monday, Wednesday, or Friday, or on any other day of which notice shall have been given on the preceding Friday. By the adoption of this arrangement, hon. Members would have from Friday until after the following Monday to arrange for attending in their places, and the danger of any votes being carried by surprise would be guarded against. With respect to the next resolution, which provided that the House having once gone into Committee on a Bill, the Chairman should not be again required to put the question on going into Committee on the same Bill, he entirely ccncurred in the propriety of such an arrangement. It was, in fact, only applying to a public Bill the practice which now prevailed with regard to private Bills, as when a private Bill was once sent before a Committee upstairs, the Committee had power to meet from day to day, until the business was disposed of. He would, however, recommend that the concluding words of the resolution, as read by the noble Lord, "unless a Member shall have given notice of an instruction to such Committee," should be omitted. Such a notice could only be necessary when a Member intended to introduce a clause at variance with the principle of the Bill; and it surely was not too much to require that a Member, having such a resolution to propose, should make up his mind with regard to it before the Chairman first took the chair. The only other point on which he would trespass upon the time of the House was with regard to the last resolution. He doubted whether it was right to fix at present the period after which the Government should take a day in each week from the notice of Motion days, until they had some experience in the first instance of the probable progress of public business. He had thought it necessary to throw out these few observations for the consideration of the House and of the noble Lord, as tending to promote the object which they all had alike in view, that of facilitating the transaction of public business.

SIR R. H. INGLIS

said, that on the first resolution he apprehended there would be no difference of opinion. There would also be probably no opposition to the second and third resolutions. As to the fourth resolution, he did not exactly understand it, and he thought it would be better if the apparent ambiguity was explained. The Fifth Resolution— That the House do meet every Wednesday, at Twelve o'clock at noon, for private business, petitions, and orders of the day, and do continue to sit until Six o'clock, unless previously adjourned,"— was one of a more important character. He was perfectly aware of the immense convenience which the adoption of that resolution was to individual Members, and to the officers of the House; and how important it was for them not to be forced to the necessity of sitting up every night in the week to such late hours as on last Thursday and Friday, for instance; but still he always felt the strongest objection to the House and its several Committees sitting at the same time on the same day. It was so contrary to the original intention and rule of the House, that, whenever the House mot at Twelve, its special leave must be obtained "for the sitting of Committees notwithstanding the sitting of the House." Yet the resolution now proposed provided, that, on Wednesdays at all events, the House should always sit at the same hour with its Committees. He did not know in what way this evil could be remedied, except by the House resolving to limit the nature of its business on those days, and especially to limit the number of those Bills that stood for second reading on Wednesdays. If Her Majesty's Ministers wished to reject a Bill, they should, he also thought, make up their minds to divide against it on the Motion for leave to bring it in; and thus put the Member introducing it out of pain, by letting him know its fate at once, instead of suffering it to pass that stage without a division, and then taking the sense of the House on a subsequent stage. He should say nothing as to the next three resolutions; but with regard to the ninth resolution there appeared to be some ambiguity, because he had heard it contended for by one individual that day, that it would give to Members the privilege enjoyed in the other House of Parliament, of presenting a Bill to the House without first asking its leave. Having, however, consulted the highest authority in the House on the point, he (Sir R. H. Inglis) was aware that the intention was not so; but still he thought the wording ought to be made somewhat more intelligible by introducing some such phrase as, "provided always that leave shall have been given for the introduction of such Bill," and order passed accordingly. He would wish to alter the twelfth resolution, by substituting the word "received" for "agreed to conditionally without debate." The most important question in the whole of these resolutions was that involved in the thirteenth resolution; and with reference to it, he might be allowed to remind the House, that a resolution suggested by the highest authority in that House, of a much wider character than that now proposed, had been adopted by the Committee of last Session; and he would wish, not for the convenience of the other House of Parliament, but for the sake of promoting the public business, that that resolution should be now adopted. The meeting of the Committee at which the resolution to which he referred had been adopted was attended by the following hon. Members (and he mentioned their names in order to satisfy the House that they included Gentlemen who had paid considerable attention to the subject):—Lord John Russell, Sir James Graham, Sir George Grey, Mr. Disraeli, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Bernal, Sir Wm. Heathcote, Mr. Cobden, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Henley, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Greene, and himself, besides the Chairman, Mr. Evelyn Denison. The Resolution was— That in order to facilitate the passing of Bills through Parliament, this House will not, after the present Session, insist upon its privileges in respect of any Bills, clauses, or amendments, which may be brought from the House of Lords, whereby tolls, rates, or duties are authorised, imposed, or regulated, provided the same shall be assessed and levied by local authorities, and for local purposes, and shall not be applied to the public service. The highest authority in the House, in recommending the adoption of that resolution, expressed himself as follows:— I believe this House, with the most perfect safety, might abandon the privilege of insisting that all Bills imposing local rates and taxes should commence in the House of Commons, and that the effect of such a relaxation would be, that the business of the Session would be distributed more evenly between the two Houses; that the House of Commons would not be incommoded, as at present, by a great mass of legislation, private and public, at the commencement of a Session; and that many Bills, such as Railway and Canal Bills, Turnpike Bills, Highway Bills, Poor-law Bills, and other Bills of that character, might be matured in the Lords, and come down in a more perfect state for the consideration of the House of Commons later in the Session. I must here observe, that we have frequently been obliged to waive our privileges with regard to Poor-law Bills and to Municipal Bills. We were obliged to waive our privileges on the English Poor-law Bill, on the English Municipal Bill, and on the Irish Poor-law Bill. There is a Bill just returned from the Lords, called the Evicted Tenants Bill, which has been amended by the Lords, and this House cannot entertain those amendments without waiving its privilege. It has, therefore, been found so impossible to maintain this privilege, that I believe the wisest course would be to abandon it. In that opinion he (Sir R. H. Inglis) most cordially concurred; but it so happened that a few days after the resolution had been agreed to in the Committee, a meeting of the Committee took place, at which Sir R. Peel and Mr. Hume attended, Lord John Russell and others being absent; and then, though the meeting was a much smaller one than the preceding meeting, the former resolution, on the motion of Mr. Hume, was rescinded. Hoping that the resolutions would be submitted to the House, seriatim, and calmly considered, he would not trespass farther on their indulgence for the present.

The First Resolution was then agreed to.

On the question that the Second Resolution be adopted as follows:— 2. Resolved—That at the time fixed for the commencement of Public Business, on days on which Orders have precedence of Notices of Motions; and after the Notices of Motions have been disposed of on all other days, Mr. Speaker do direct the Clerk at the Table to read the Orders of the Day without any Question being put;"—

MR. HUME

said, that this resolution had been originally submitted by him to the House as an experiment, and though he certainly considered such a step necessary at the time, he felt bound to admit that many hon. Gentlemen who usually acted with him had subsequently expressed their regret that the order had been agreed to. Many of these hon. Gentlemen concurred with him, that the best mode of saving the time of the House would be by limiting the duration of speeches. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen who cried "hear" would perhaps be surprised to learn that when he brought forward a resolution to that effect in the Committee, though there were seventeen Members present, he could not "ret one to second his Motion. He was still of opinion that a limit should be put to the length at which individual Members impressed their views on the House; and if the period were fixed at one hour, they would no longer have any necessity for retrenching other privileges which they now found it necessary to abandon. It had been stated, that there were seventeen different stages in which a Member might have an opportunity of making observations on a measure as it passed through the House, and he thought half the number of these stages would be quite sufficient for all practical purposes. But if the House were to agree to the limitation of time he had proposed in Committee, and which he did not mean at the present time to press upon the House, as it had met with so little support in Committee, he thought that they would then be able to allow as many opportunities as at present for Members to join in the debate, and thus avoid the interfering with the privileges of the House. It was not his intention at present to move a resolution on the subject; but at some future time he might try how the opinion of the House agreed with his.

The Resolution was then put and agreed to.

The Third Resolution was— 3. Resolved—That the Orders of the Day be disposed of in the order in which they stand upon the paper; the right being reserved to Her Majesty's Ministers of placing Government Orders at the head of the list, in the rotation in which they are to be taken on the days on which Government Bills have precedence.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

wished to explain that the object of this resolution was, not to give the Government the power of disposing of their Motions before those of private Members, but to give the Government the power of placing their own Motions in such an order as they pleased.

MR. HERRIES

said, there might be some difficulty in understanding what were to be considered as Government Orders, as there were many Bills to which that character was given, though they might as well have been introduced by private individuals as by the Government. Of course, there could be no difficulty with regard to Bills of Supply or similar orders; but there were many other Bills which might be improperly attempted to be covered by this word Government. It was hardly a Parliamentary expression at best; and though he did not venture to suggest any alteration, yet he thought the phrase was too vague and loose.

MR. HUME

said, that having taken part in this subject formerly, he might state, that by the phrase Government Orders was understood any Bills of which Her Majesty's Ministers had charge, and the public Bills which they brought forward. That was the interpretation which was put upon it at the time; but whether it was a right one or not, he did not pretend to say.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

considered that this resolution was defective on one point, to which he wished to call the attention of the House. There might be twenty Orders of the Day, which Her Majesty's Ministers might have a right to arrange in a certain order; but his suggestion was, whether it would not be wise to limit the time within which orders were to be entertained. Anybody who had watched the business of last Session must know that a great number of new orders were introduced after twelve o'clock at night; and he himself saw a Bill, containing more than one hundred clauses, pass through Committee in ten minutes, when there were not more than eleven Members present. He thought that a time should be fixed, after which no fresh order should be taken up, and he thought that it should be provided that no discussion should take place on any Order of the Day after twelve o'clock.

MR. EWART

said, to his mind the expression "Government Orders" perfectly conveyed the meaning it was intended to convey—that was to say, it meant all Bills introduced by Government. But he thought it would be better if the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Cambridge University were adopted, because that would give the Government the power of putting-forward Bills introduced by other Gentlemen.

MR. GOULBURN

thought that at all events the days on which Government Bills were to have precedence ought to be left out.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that this resolution was precisely similar to the one adopted last Session, and no difficulty had been found in its practical working.

MR. HUME

said, this proposition had been made with a view to give facilities to the public business; but he thought it would be of still greater utility if they dealt with Government as they did with private Bills, which was to fix a certain time beyond which no Government Bill should be received, unless in cases of emergency. Hitherto the practice had too much been to allow the Session to go on with very few Bills, and then towards the close to introduce a great number. Let a day be fixed after which the Government would not be allowed to introduce a Bill; and if any emergency should afterwards arise, it would be easy for the House to suspend its Standing Orders. But if the Government were aware that after a certain day they would not be allowed to introduce any new Bills, they would then pay more attention to their business, and the House would not so often be taken by surprise. A great deal of the crude legislation which had been of late so much complained of, had arisen from the practice of bringing in Bills when the Members of the House were engaged with Committees, and, consequently, very few hon. Members had scarcely time even to read, much less consider them. He thought Her Majesty's Government ought to take it into consideration whether such a resolution would not even be of advantage to themselves, as it would induce those under them who were intrusted with the preparation of their Bills to use more diligence in bringing them forward.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

had great objections to the last proposition of the hon. Gentleman. In the first place, he thought it was unwise in them to debate a rule which they foresaw must often be suspended. There was always a great tendency to relax the authority of a rule which was liable to frequent suspension; and any one who had experience in public business must foresee that if they laid down a rule that all Government Bills must be introduced by the last day of March, there would be constant applications for the suspension of that rule. Unforeseen events were constantly occuring, and no doubt could be entertained that in that case the rule must be suspended. But, besides this, he doubted the policy of introducing a great number of Bills at once; he thought it was much better that the Government should introduce only a few Bills, which the Government were determined to pass, rather than to distract the attention of the House with a great number at a time.

MR. HUME

said, he had no wish to perplex the attention of the House with a load of business at a time. On the contrary, he recollected that the opinion of the Committee, of which he was a Member, was unanimous that when a Bill was once introduced it should be prosecuted de die in diem, instead of allowing it to stand over for several days while other subjects were introduced. He had no wish, therefore, to cumber the House with many Bills before them at once; but what he wanted was, that Government should let them know in reasonable time all that they intended to bring forward. He did not fix upon the 1st of March: he would say the 1st of August, or the 1st of July. He did not mean to press the suggestion; he only wished to lay his views before the House.

The Resolution was then agreed to.

The Fourth Resolution was— 4. Resolved—That no Notice shall be given beyond the period which shall include the four days next following on which Notices are entitled to precedence; due allowance being made for any intervening adjournment of the House, and the period being in that case so far extended as to include four Notice days foiling during the sitting of the House.

The Resolution, after a few words from MR. HERRIES, was agreed to.

The Fifth Resolution was— 5. Resolved—That the House do meet every Wednesday at Twelve o'clock at noon, for private Business, Petitions, Orders of the Day, and Notices of Motions, and do continue to sit until Six o'clock, unless previously adjourned.

MR. LAW

said, he wished to make a suggestion with regard to this resolution. He ventured to submit that it was desirable to except from the Orders of the Day, which might be discussed on Wednesdays, such Bills as involved the repeal of public statutes. The greater part of the Wednesdays last Session had been taken up with discussing measures of this nature, when Members were harassed by being continually brought down to the House to discuss a Bill on which nothing was determined, owing to the uncertainty of attendance of Members on Committees. If a measure was of importance enough to be pressed forward on Wednesdays, the Government ought either to take charge of it, or at least to express their opinion fully with regard to it. He submitted that it required a full attendance of Members whenever it was proposed to change an existing law; and therefore, it was a very improper measure to be brought forward on a Wednesday, when numbers of Members were excluded by other important business from attending. He ventured to suggest that they ought to except from this resolution all Bills the object of which was to repeal the public statutes.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

rose to observe, that Wednesday was a day generally appropriated to the smuggling of Bills through the House, and to the malappropriation of the public money. The Members of Government usually came down on that day, and availed themselves of an empty House to smuggle through their Bills or to malappropriate the money of the public. He had seen business of the utmost importance going on in the House when there were not more than twelve or thirteen Members present. He had been too lenient, too gentle, too merciful, he would say, to the malappropriation of public money, and to the desire of Government to smuggle their measures through the House. He agreed with the suggestions of his right hon. Friend, and he hoped that he would attempt to restrain these proceedings of Government, in taking advantage of the thin attendance of Members for their own ends.

MR. EWART

thought, that if the objections of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Law) were of value, they ought to be carried further, and to apply to all business of an important nature that was brought before the House. In opposition to the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he would place the recorded opinion of the Speaker, who stated before the Committee, that of all days in the week, the debates on Wednesday were conducted in the most satisfactory manner; and he particularly cited the discussion on the Factory Bill, as one where there was the most close attention to the subject, and the greatest amount of well-balanced argument that he had ever listened to. For his part, he was content with this expression of opinion, and he saw no reason whatever for the proposition of the learned Recorder.

The Resolution was then agreed to; as were also the following, without discussion:— 6. Resolved—That when such business has been disposed of, at Six o'clock precisely, notwithstanding there may be business under discussion, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question. 7. Resolved—That whenever the House shall be in Committee on Wednesday at Six o'clock, the Chairman do immediately report progress, and Mr. Speaker do resume the Chair, and adjourn the House, without putting any Question. 8. Resolved—That the Business under discussion, and any Business not disposed of at the time of such Adjournment, do stand as Orders of the Day for the next day on which the House shall sit.

On the Ninth Resolution— 9. Resolved—That when any Bill shall be presented by a Member, in pursuance of an Order of this House, or shall be brought from the Lords, the Questions 'That this Bill be now read a first time,' and 'That the Bill be printed,' shall be decided without Amendment or Debate.

MR. VERNON SMITH

said, as this was the first of what might be called the new resolutions, he wished now to express his opinion that he did not think that this resolution standing alone, would answer the end which the House had in view. There was no one question which so much occupied the attention of the country, at the present day, as the despatch of public business. He thought that the appointment of the Committee, which was proposed by an hon. Member, whom he did not now see in his place, was an excellent one; but its appointment was so late in the Session—the month of July—that they had come to a somewhat hasty decision, and he thought that Committee might be reappointed with advantage during the present Session. In their report the Committee had thrown the burden of the subject upon the Government, and the Government seemed now to have thrown back the burden upon the Committee, for they confined themselves entirely to the suggestions which the Committee had made. In these resolutions they proposed to alter the old laws which guided the proceedings of the House; but they did not alter the old causes which delayed the despatch of business. He would venture to say, that if they examined the pages of Hansard, they would find that very few debates indeed had taken place on bringing in a Bill, but the delays had taken place on the excessive adjournments, and the speaking of the same Members on the various stages of a Bill. His hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton) had made a suggestion, that if the adjournment was moved before all the Orders of the Day were disposed of, such Motion should not be entertained, unless twenty-one Members stood up in their places to signify their assent to the Motion. What happened on that proposition? The Committee decided upon it, six to six: among those in favour of it, were the noble Member for London (Lord John Russell), for Liverpool (Mr. Cardwell), and the West Hiding (Mr. Cobden), and other Members of influence. The numbers being equal, the Chairman gave his casting vote in its favour, and it was accordingly carried, yet it was not reported to the House; and it now appeared that Her Majesty's Government had not taken it up. He hoped, however, that his hon. Friend would himself bring the matter before the House. He repeated, that their attention ought to be directed, not so much to shorten the stages through which Bills were to pass, as to curtail those monster debates which now took place upon almost every subject. He would also suggest to Her Majesty's Ministers, that though they had drawn a line of separation between Order days and Notice days, yet he hoped they had not so much separated between them in their own minds but that they might avail themselves of Notice nights, when there was no business, to bring on their own orders. In the month of February, last Session, the House rose at from six to seven almost every Tuesday evening, and all these days were lost to the business of the country, which might have been avoided if Government had put down their own business for transaction on each of these nights. Even on the nights when the House was counted out, he still thought the blame ought to rest on the Ministers, because if they had business to transact they would keep a House. He thought the proposition of the hon. Member for Montrose, limiting the time allowed to speakers, was deserving of attention, and he trusted he would persevere in bringing it before the House.

MR. BROTHERTON

said, he should be happy to bring his proposition before the House, if he thought it would meet with general support. What he wanted was to prevent hon. Members from moving the adjournment of the House merely for the sake of discussing some question which they could not otherwise introduce; he thought that was wrong, and that the House would do well to adopt some resolution to prevent it. He did not complain of the Committee for not reporting his resolution to the House; for he thought it was not a desirable thing to alter old established rules, except with the general concurrence of the House. If he found reason to believe, that a great majority of Members were in its favour, he would press it upon the attention of the House.

MR. HENRY DRUMMOND

said, that any proposition to curtail the privileges of debate, should receive from him the most strenuous opposition. This was the only place where a debate was practicable—it was the only place where a one-sided opinion could not be got up—it was the only place where men were made to listen to things they did not like to hear. The real fact was, that the Duke of Wellington had never received an answer to the question he had asked long ago—how, under the Reform Bill, was the Queen's Government to be carried on? and now, as part answer to the question, Her Majesty's Ministers came forward to tell them they were in a dead-lock, and that they did not know how to get out of it. He did not think, however, that the blame of this ought to rest upon Ministers so much as upon the forms of the House. In the first place, what was the use of that thing called the Speech from the Throne, except so far as it related to a plain statement of facts? and, still more, what was the use of debating it? They had boon summoned to attend there on Thursday last, and up to that period they had literally done nothing. He must say he differed—he did it with great reluctance—from his right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth; but he certainly thought that Her Majesty's Ministers ought at the outset of the Session to declare what measures they intended to bring forward. He admitted that circumstances might arise which would justify the departure from the ordinary rules; but the ordinary rule ought to be that all their measures should be brought forward at once, that they might know what they had met about. But he had a stronger objection than this. Their first business was to audit the public accounts; all their other business stood second to that; and if there was not time allowed for that, then he thought the rules of the House did not work well. How that was best to be accomplished, however, was a subject which would require considerable discussion.

MR. WALPOLE

said, by this resolution three stages of a Bill were going to be merged into one. He had not the least objection to that; but he would suggest to the noble Lord whether it would not be more advisable to return to what was an old standing order of the House, and to say that no Bill should be presented to the House unless a copy of it had been left with the clerk at least three days before it was moved in the House. Such an order had been agreed to in 1651, and he thought if it were now adopted it would give Members an opportunity of seeing and considering the Bill before leave was asked to bring it in. In this way two advantages would follow: first, no Member would bring in a Bill unless he had first well considered the subject; and in the second place, when a Bill was introduced the House would no longer be loft to the vague statement of its contents given by the Member who introduced it.

MR. GOULBURN

thought the hon. and learned Member had misunderstood the order of 1651, which had no bearing upon the subject. If this proposition were agreed to, the opponents of a Bill would be apt to go into minute points of detail on the second reading, which would render the debates inconveniently long. He thought they must take the statements of hon. Members on the Bills they introduced, as the material on which the House was to form its judgment.

Sir R. H. INGLIS

thought that any measure would be desirable which would induce hon. Members to give some attention to their own legislation. The crude state in which many measures were brought forward was one great cause of delay.

The Resolution was then agreed to, as were the following with some verbal amendments:— 10. Resolved—That the Committees of Supply, and Ways and Means, shall be fixed for Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and for any other day on which Orders of the Day shall have precedence of Notices of Motions, of which notice shall have been given on the preceding Friday. 11. Resolved—That when a Bill or other matter (except Supply or ways and means) has been partly considered in Committee, and the Chairman has been directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again, and the House shall have ordered that the Committee shall sit again on a particular day, the Speaker shall, when the Order for the Committee has been read, forthwith leave the Chair without putting any Question, and the House shall thereupon resolve itself into such Committee. 12. Resolved—That at the close of the Proceedings of a Committee of the whole House on a Bill, the Chairman shall report the Bill forthwith to the House, and when Amendments shall have been made thereto, the same shall be received without Debate, and a time appointed for taking the same into consideration. 13. That with respect to any Bill brought to this House from the House of Lords, or returned by the House of Lords to this House, with Amendments, whereby any pecuniary penalty, forfeiture, or fee, shall be authorised, imposed, appropriated, regulated, varied, or extinguished, this House will not insist on its ancient and undoubted privileges in the following cases: 1. When the object of such pecuniary penalty or forfeiture is to secure the execution of the Act, or the punishment or prevention of offences. 2. Where such fees are imposed in respect of benefit taken or service rendered under the Act, and in order to the execution of the Act, and are not made payable into the Treasury or Exchequer, or in aid of the public Revenue, and do not form the ground of public accounting by the parties receiving the same, either in respect of deficit or surplus. 3. When such Bill shall be a Private Bill for a Local or Personal Act.

SIR R. H. INGLIS

wished to call attention to the resolution originally proposed to the Committee of last year upon the subject of Money Bills in the House of Lords. He considered that the fact of the majority of the Committee having agreed to the resolution of the 17th of July was primâ facie evidence of its superior fitness to meet the exigency of the case, and he therefore thought that it should be substi- tuted for the one before the House. Considering the great interest in the better despatch of public business which was excited out of doors, and the great discontent that existed upon the subject of the delays which had latterly taken place, he thought it very desirable that they should give the other House of Parliament an opportunity of introducing Bills, even although some of the measures so introduced might appear to trespass somewhat upon the privileges of that House. He thought it would be well to permit the other House to interfere with money privileges, so long as it did not affect the general burdens of the State, and he therefore should move, as an Amendment, the resolution originally submitted to the Committee. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving an Amendment— To leave out from the word 'That', to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'in order to facilitate the passing of Bills through Parliament, this House will not insist upon its Privileges in respect of any Bills. Clauses, or Amendments which may be brought from the House of Lords, whereby tolls, rates, or duties are authorised, imposed, or regulated, provided the same shall be assessed and levied by local authorities, and for local purposes, and shall not be applied to the public service.'

MR. HUME

could not then state the precise nature of the objection to the resolution proposed by the hon. Baronet when it was originally submitted to the Committee. He could only say that, after a discussion of two hours' duration, these words were rescinded. He, therefore, hoped his hon. Friend would postpone his Amendment for the present.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, that when the question first came before the Committee, he certainly thought the resolution now proposed by the hon. Baronet would not be objectionable. But the more it was discussed, the more difficult did it appear for the Committee to recommend it. For instance, it was suggested that there were cases in which the House of Lords might introduce a Bill by which a tax might be levied, which, although applied to local objects and not to the general service of the State, might nevertheless affect the subjects of the country generally. Let them suppose, for example, that in Scotland a rate should be levied for the support of schools exclusively for Church purposes, from which Dissenters should be excluded, the object would be local, yet the effect would be generally felt. There were various other cases in which similar and very considerable difficulties might arise. He, therefore, thought it would be much better to adhere to the resolution before the House.

SIR R. H. INGLIS

withdrew his Amendment, and the Resolution was agreed to. Resolved—That after Tuesday, the 1st day of May next, Orders of the Day shall have precedence of Notices of Motions on Thursdays, the right being reserved to Her Majesty's Ministers of placing Government Orders at the head of the list as on Mondays and Fridays.

MR. HERRIES

said, that the resolution distinguished itself very materially from others, inasmuch as it was proposed to the House by Her Majesty's Government that a power should be surrendered entirely to them which was usually heretofore given only when the pressure of public business required it. Now, to such a course he thought there was very great objection. When the requirements of public business needed the grant, it would be time enough for Her Majesty's Ministers to ask the House for it; but at present he thought they were asking rather too much. Would it not be wise to leave it, as in former Sessions, to the discretion of Parliament, for there really seemed no reason for adopting it at the present period of the Session?

LORD J. RUSSELL

should beg to call the attention of the House to the very great change that had taken place of late years in the mode of conducting public business in it. At the beginning of the present century, although public business was by no means so pressing as it had become of late, Orders of the Day had precedence on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thurs-days, and Fridays; and it was only now and then that notices of Motion appeared. It was then found that the notices of Motion increased so much that it was no longer possible to carry on business in the existing form; and the House appropriated two days, Mondays and Fridays, exclusively to Orders of the Day, Government business having precedence on those days. But that was done chiefly for the purpose of securing nights for Committees of Supply. And there had been a still greater change since then. Thus, when measures of importance were brought in, whatever might be the Government in office, it was the general opinion that if there were to be legislation on any great subject, it should be undertaken by the Government, and that individual Members had nothing else to do than to approve or to criticise the merits of such measures. That being the case, the House enabled the Government to introduce the estimates, and the supplies for the year; and not only this, but they allowed them to introduce all Bills of importance. This, then, was not a fair distribution of the business. It was not fair that they should have only two days in the week allotted to them; or rather, in other words, that the Government should have only eight days in the course of the month allotted to them, whilst other hon. Members had twelve. He, therefore, thought it would be well if there were some resolution carried at an early period of the Session, giving that which was usually given at some period to the Government, namely, the Thursday. The House would be merely pledged to give at a certain period that which he thought was a very fair demand—means to enable Bills to be sent up from that House to the other House of Parliament in time sufficiently early to enable a fair and full consideration to be given to them. In the present circumstances, he feared that they would find that the Government business could not make any great progress when before the House only two days of the week; but at the same time, if there were attention merely called to the subject by the printing of the resolution, he should be satisfied for the present. He did not wish to press it if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries) thought it would be better postponed to some future time. He (Lord John Russell) had stated his views to the House; and he thought that when, at a future time, he should ask the House to consent to the resolution, he could not be charged with taking them by surprise.

MR. SPEAKER

was about to put the question upon the withdrawal of the resolution, when—

MR. MILNER GIBSON

rose and said, he thought that was the proper time when they should take into consideration a Motion for the limitation of hon. Members' speeches. The subject was a novelty, and therefore he did not wish to go the length of limiting speeches to half an hour or forty minutes, although he thought about forty minutes would be the best period for limitation; but he would propose, in the first instance, one hour, by way of commencement. If the noble Lord was about to withdraw the resolution, he would, if permitted, propose it as an original Motion: or, if it did not interfere with the views of the noble Lord regarding the resolution, he would move as an Amendment— To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'the Speeches of Members be limited in duration to one hour; but that the introducers of Original Motions, and Ministers of the Crown speaking in reply, be exempted from this rule.' A resolution to the same effect had been proposed in the Committee by the hon. Member for the West Riding, but it had been rejected by them. He (Mr. Milner Gibson) hoped his resolution would find more favour with the House.

MR. SPEAKER

asked if the right hon. Member for Manchester objected to the withdrawal of the resolution, or consented to it?

MR. MILNER GIBSON

, before he could consent to the withdrawal of the resolution, wished to know if the House would allow him to propose his as an original Motion? The subject was before them, and they might as well waive forms and decide upon it at once.

MR. HORSMAN

wished to offer a few observations upon the subject before the resolution was withdrawn. In the last Session of Parliament there were no less than forty-nine Bills read a first time after the 1st of August, and there were seventy or eighty Bills passed during the mouth of August. They had crowded their Statute-book with Acts; and he did not understand that that subject had been brought before the Committee last year. He did not see the weight of all the objections made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite to the limiting of the days for introducing new Bills. There was no occasion for naming a very early day. They might name the 1st of August, for instance; and one of the results would be that when the period was limited, and the day arrived on which the last introduction of Bills could take place, the Session would be felt to be drawing to a close, and that very fact might tend to shorten the Session.

MR. SPEAKER

having again put the question, upon the withdrawal of the resolution,

MR. M. GIBSON

said, that he should object to the Motion being withdrawn, in order that he might move his own resolution by way of amendment; and, that the House should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion solely upon the merits of the Amendment, he should move to leave out all the words of the noble Lord's resolution after the first word "that."

MR. COBDEN

seconded the Amendment.

LORD J. RUSSELL

said, that he should not occupy many minutes in discussing the question, and he, therefore, should not transgress the rule of one hour. When the matter had been discussed in the Committee, it was felt by the majority that it would not be convenient to introduce such a rule. He (Lord J. Russell) must confess that sometimes when the House had been teased by the garrulity of some Members, he felt that a time might come when the House would adopt some rule with regard to the limitation of time. He owned, however, that he did not think they could make any condition with regard to Members introducing original Bills, or Ministers of the Crown. He did not think it sufficient to say that Ministers of the Crown, or Members introducing original Bills, should be excepted. Let them suppose a Member of the House urging charges of criminality against another Member of the House who was in office, or who might have lately been in office, or against an individual who, indeed, might not be a member of the House. Would it be fair that a Member should so come forward, and go through a whole history of the conduct of the Governor General of India, or the Board of Admiralty, or the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, for three hours together? going through the events of a long period of time, and making various charges with every advantage of eloquence and address and great proportion of matter; and then that the other Member himself, or the accused not being a member of the House, the advocate of that person, should not be permitted to employ an equal time in his defence. He (Lord John Russell) did not see how they could make such a definition as would enable them to do justice to all parties. If they confined every person to one hour, he thought it would be a better rule than allowing any exceptions to the stringency of the rule. But, at the same time, if it were to be adopted, he begged to submit to their consideration what a loss it would be on many occasions when a great subject was to be opened—when a great financial plan was to be developed, or when some considerable change was to be proposed in the constitution of the country, that the Member proposing it should not have more than one hour in which to propose it and to state his views. And yet if you did not limit everybody you would hardly do justice to the individual, while, if you did limit every one, you would hardly do justice to the subject to be treated. He would not take up the time of the House further upon the subject, but he thought it was possible the time might come when such resolution might be entertained. He hoped, however, that the discretion of the House itself would prevent them from arriving at any such determination, and that in future, as in past times, complete freedom of debate would be one of the greatest privileges of which they could boast.

MR. TYNTE

said, that he thought the love of speaking had increased very much with the perfection to which shorthand writing had attained, and that the House was greatly indebted to those gentlemen up at the back of the chair for the length as well as the accuracy of the debates. It was an inducement to hon. Members to speak when their speeches were sent through the country; and he hoped those gentlemen (the reporters) would use a little patriotic discretion in distinguishing that which was worthy of being reported.

MR. HUME

did not go the length of the noble Lord. The noble Lord trusted to the discretion of hon. Members, but hon. Members had no discretion. He thought speeches should generally not exceed half an hour; and no one should go beyond an hour. He was perfectly satisfied that any one could express all that he had to say in that time.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has a strong feeling that every speech would have been greatly improved if it had been limited to an hour. I must say, I have often heard the hon. Member himself exceed an hour in his speeches. But I quite agree with him that we have all been delinquents in this matter. I think there has been a tendency of late to make speeches of undue length; and I think there are few speeches that would not be improved if they were of less length, and more condensed in argument. I think if there were a general feeling to that effect, it would be much better than a special rule of limitation. If hon. Members should be limited to an hour, I am very much afraid that many would think they had a vested right to that time, and that they would be doing a great favour to the House when they occupied anything less than the full hour. But I am sure I have heard a great many speeches during the long time I have been in Parliament which I should be very sorry to have found subjected to such a rule. Surely there have been speeches made by Mr. Burke, when he was neither proposing a new measure, nor speaking as a Cabinet Minister in reply, which every one would have re- gretted having been limited to an hour. I have heard speeches from Lord Plunkett exceeding an hour in duration, that I am sure there was not one single extraneous word in—speeches from Mr. Canning, in which there was not one word too much. And, therefore, in attempting by these formal precise rules the limiting of some excesses, you are running the risk of depriving the people of great instruction. My hope is, that we shall all act upon the principle of speaking more briefly, and though some may wish to give effect to a peroration, there might be some condensation of argument. And if the arguments used in the preceding part of a debate were not repeated, a great saving of time might be effected. It would be better, too, if all those hon. Gentlemen who intend to take part in a debate, would take the trouble to attend for the first one or two days of it, and observe the arguments used, replied to, and disposed of. That would be a means of effecting some reform much more useful than a dry rule. I agree with the noble Lord that it would be better to have a rule that would apply universally—that we ought to have no distinction between private Members and the Ministers of the Crown. Above all, make no distinction between those hon. Members who trouble the House with original Motions, and those hon. Members who speak for or against those Motions. Such a plan would be a perfect premium for Motions, as enabling those who brought them forward to speak two hours, whilst those who followed in debate could speak only one. Why, Tuesdays and Thursdays, at least, would always be occupied with Motions, intended to ensure two hours' speeches. But, then, what is the meaning of a "Minister speaking in reply?" Does the phrase include every Minister who replies to a charge, or only the Minister who follows the hon. Gentleman who brings that charge forward? A Minister speaking in reply is to be allowed to speak more than an hour. What does this mean? Suppose a Minister to speak immediately after the speech of an hon. Gentleman attacking the policy of Government—suppose he had spoken more than an hour—is any other Minister to have the same privilege, or is it to be confined to one? I think, Sir, that the adoption of a rule of this kind, without anything like mature consideration, would involve us in the greatest perplexity and embarrassment; and so, on the whole, admitting that there exists a general feel- ing that we consume rather too much time in discussion, and rather too little in furthering the progress of practical legislation—believing, I say, that opinion to be well founded, and believing it to embody the general sense of the House—witness the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume), who has offered himself as a sacrifice in the first instance—[Mr. HUME: If you will confine yourself to the rule, I will.] The hon. Gentleman then virtually does acknowledge that he has been in the habit of wasting the time of the House; but seeing, I repeat, that the general feeling of the House is as I have stated it to be, and in the hope that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) will set us all a good example, and will not be offended if, as he trespasses upon the fiftieth minute in his own addresses, we give him some token of warning that he is approaching that limit which he wishes to set up—seeing, I say, that such is the general feeling of hon. Members, I think that their wishes will be better carried out by appealing to their sense of fitness and discretion, than by the institution of any arbitrary rule.

SIR R. H. INGLIS

said, the professed object of the hon. Member for Manchester was to save the time of the House. But how was that illustrated? It was proposed that one Member should speak upwards of an hour, and that another should speak upwards of an hour, and so on. They would thus multiply speakers and not save time. They would make the maximum time allowed to one Member the minimum time to another; and then every Member would consider himself justified in speaking as long as he was permitted. He hoped the Motion would be negatived.

MR. COBDEN

said, that as he had taken part in the Committee on this important subject, he would take the liberty of stating to the House the grounds upon which he would support the Motion. In the Committee there had been a general admission that there was a great grievance in that House, owing to the long delays which took place in carrying on public business; but he believed everybody came out of the Committee with a belief that they (the Committee) had done very little by their report to remedy the evil. He made a Motion in the Committee which had the support of four Members out of the twelve. That Motion was substantially the same as the one now before the House. There had not been a strong feeling against it, nor was there a strong feeling against the system of clôture, the plan adopted in the French Chambers, but there was a feeling that the Committee should consult public opinion. The right hon. Member for Tamworth now rested his hope that Members would limit themselves to a certain time. He (Mr. Cobden) confessed that he had no faith in any such understanding as that, and he believed they were launching themselves on another Session, in the course of which they would have a waste of time. The right hon. Member for Tamworth was quite right in saying that some of the Members of that House were in the habit of repeating the arguments which had been made use of by other Members. He (Mr. Cobden) could speak for himself, and declare that dozens and scores of times he had intended to address the House, but that when he found others said what he intended to say he abstained from speaking. But this was not a general rule. They were flooded with repetitions in that House, and that was the cause of the delay. Then, with reference to the argument made use of by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) about the necessity of permitting Members of that House to have an unlimited time because a charge might be made upon an important Motion respecting the character or conduct of some absent individual, why that could not be a personal charge, or it could not engage the attention of that House. It must be a charge founded on public policy, and, if it were made on public grounds, the party would either be there to defend himself on public grounds, or it would not rest on one individual to defend him, for there might be a dozen or a score of individuals to defend him. Then, with respect to the proposed privilege of permitting Ministers of the Crown to speak upwards of an hour, why there was some justice in that, for it sometimes happened that the Government were attacked by many Members, and that the Ministers had to sustain an argument against a large party in the House. And, though the whole Government might speak in the course of a discussion in which they were charged, still the Government formed a small fraction of the House, and, therefore, there was no injustice in giving them an unlimited time. But, if they limited the time of speaking generally, they would improve the quality of the speeches—for he might be allowed to say that the fault was, they were much too diffuse—that they did not keep sufficiently to the question before them, and that they overlaid their speeches with too long quotations from Hansard, or from books or reports to which all the Members had access as well as the Member making the quotations. A Member frequently entered the House and read and recited long extracts from an armful of books, to which all the Members had access, as well as the Member who read and recited them. He believed, therefore, that if they limited the time of speaking, they should very much improve the quality of their speeches; and of this he was quite sure, that if a Member had anything to say, he could say it in an hour. It was when a Member had nothing to say, or did not know what he was going to say, that he would have occasion to speak for more than an hour. The right hon. Member for Tam-worth had referred to the case of Mr. Burke. That was an unhappy instance, for it was well known that Burke generally emptied the House. He was called "the dinner bell;" and it was said that—" He went on refining", And thought of convincing while they thought of dining. And he thought if his speeches were cut into four they would read much better than they did. He would limit the time of speaking, for the purpose of saving the time of the House, and the reputation of the House with the country; and, therefore, he would support the Motion.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he was in favour of condensing their discussions, but that he was surprised at the quarter from which the present proposition for the arbitrary limitation of speeches to a certain length of time, without reference to the matter contained in them, emanated. Did they not know that the hon. Members for Manchester and for the West Riding had established a system and means for discussing questions out of that House? And it seemed strange that the hon. Member for the West Riding, after repeating the same arguments against the corn laws for seven years, and having succeeded by so doing, should now complain of repetition. It might be disagreeable to him to discuss those questions in a place where there was a difference of opinion; but surely that was salutary for the public, since the laws to which they were to submit were based upon these discussions, which could not but be partial if only one side was heard. He (Mr. Newdegate) had been much struck by an observation which lately appeared in one of the daily publications, which are now so well written, in which it was said of that House "that discussion was going out of doors." He begged the House to consider that great questions would be discussed elsewhere, if not there; and that if the House would not entertain the full discussion of them, they would encourage a system of collecting assemblages elsewhere, who would consider discussion of these great questions their sole province, and that House would become the mere record office for enactments virtually passed elsewhere. He could not pass unnoticed a suggestion which one hon. Member had ventured to make to those who recorded and made public what passed in that House. That hon. Gentleman had ventured to propose that only partial fragments of their discussions should be conveyed to the public. He (Mr. Newdegate) had known some instances in which the speeches on one side only of the discussion had been fully reported; but he trusted that those who fulfilled the important function of imforming the public of what passed in that House, would afford the public fair opportunities of judging of the arguments used on either side in discussion, and of the conduct of their representatives.

The House divided on Mr. Gibson's Motion:—Ayes 62; Noes 96: Majority 34.

List of the AYES.
Adair, R. A. S. Kershaw, J.
Alcock, T. Lacy, H. C.
Bernal, R. Littleton, hon. E. R.
Bouverie, hon. E. P. Mackinnon, W. A.
Bright, J. Meagher, T.
Brotherton, J. Mitchell, T. A.
Brown, W. Moffatt, G.
Busfeild, W. Molesworth, Sir W.
Cayley, E. S. Mowatt, F.
Childers, J. W. Muntz, G. F.
Clay, J. O'Connor, F.
Cobden, R. Rawdon, Col.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. St. George, C.
Copeland, Ald. Scrope, G. P.
Crawford, W. S. Sidney, Ald.
Duke, Sir J. Smith, J. B.
Duncan, G. Stanley, E.
Ellis, J. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Ewart, W. Stuart, Lord D.
Fagan, W. Sullivan, M.
Foley, J. H. H. Tennent, R. J.
Fordyce, A. D. Thompson, Col.
Frewen, C. H. Thornely, T.
Guest, Sir J. Trelawny, J. S.
Haggitt, F. R. Tynte, Col. C. J.
Harris, R. Willoughby, Sir H.
Hastie, A. Wilson, M.
Hastie, A. Wood, W. P.
Heathcoat, J. Wyld, J.
Henry, A.
Heyworth, L. TELLERS.
Hope, A. Hume, J.
Humphery, Ald. Milner, G.
List of the NOES.
Anstey, T. C. Mandeville, Visct.
Armstrong, Sir A. Masterman, J.
Armstrong, R. B. Matheson, A.
Baillie, H. J. Maule, rt. hon. F.
Bankes, G. Miles, W.
Barrington, Visct. Morgan, O.
Bellew, R. M. Morison, Sir W.
Bennet, P. Newdegate, C. N.
Blackall, S. W. Norreys, Lord
Blair, S. O'Brien, Sir L.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Ossulston, Lord
Bunbury, E. H. Pakington, Sir J.
Charteris, hon. F. Palmerston, Visct.
Clerk, hon. Sir G. Parker, J.
Cobbold, J. C. Patten, J. W.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Craig, W. G. Pinney, W.
Drummond, H. Plowden, W. H. C.
Dunne, F. P. Pugh, D.
Ebrington, Visct. Raphael, A.
Elliot, hon. J. E. Rich, H.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Russell, Lord J.
Floyer, J. Sadlier, J.
French, F. Sandars, G.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Sandars, J.
Grace, O. D. J. Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Sibthorp, Col.
Granby, Marq. of Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Granger, T. C. Spooner, R.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Stafford, A.
Grey, R. W. Strickland, Sir G.
Hawes, B. Sutton, J. H. M.
Heald, J. Tancred, H. W.
Herbert, H. A. Tenison, E. K.
Herries, rt. hon. J. C. Thompson, Ald.
Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Hobhouse, T. B. Urquhart, D.
Hogg, Sir J. W. Vane, Lord H.
Hood, Sir A. Vyse, R. H. R. H.
Hornby, J. Walsh, Sir J. B.
Horsman, E. Watkins, Col. L.
Howard, Lord E. Wilson, J.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Wodehouse, E.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H. Wrightson, W. B.
Legh, G. C. Young, Sir J.
Lincoln, Earl of
Lockhart, A. E. TELLERS.
M'Gregor, J. Tufnell, H.
Maitland, T. Hill, Lord M.

The Fourteenth Resolution was then withdrawn, and the Sessional Orders, as amended, were read over by the SPEAKER, and agreed to.