§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to call the attention of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London to the fact, that in this the eighth month of the Session, there were on the paper for to-night, notices for six new Bills to be brought in by the Government. He presumed these were to be brought in at two or three o'clock in the morning, and, as usual, were to be carried through the various stages at the same hour, with a crowded list of Orders of the Day. He wished to ask the noble Lord if he could give the House any information as to how many more Bills he intended to bring in at this late period of the Session?
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, if the hon. Member had given him notice of his question, he should probably have been better able to answer him. It was usual at this period of the Session to bring in Bills, the object of which was simply to continue existing Acts of Parliament, and that was the nature of the Bills to which the hon. Member referred.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he understood that some of these Bills were not of that nature, but were new measures altogether. At a certain period of the Session it had been usual to perform a certain process of elimination, generally called "the Massacre of the Innocents," or some such title as that, when Bills were withdrawn which were really not intended to be proceeded with. It would be greatly for the convenience of the House if the noble Lord would state what measures it was really intended to proceed with. There was among others, the Registration of Assurances Bill, for instance, with regard to which he was perpetually receiving letters from the country, wishing to know when it would come on.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, it was generally the case that there were on the paper at this time of the year, a number of Bills which it was found totally impossible to carry through before the end of the Session; but he trusted that there were very few Bills of that nature before the House at the present time. He had purposely objected to the introduction of Bills by many hon. Members, on the ground that before the end of the Session there would probably not be time enough to proceed with them. At some future period he 202 would certainly state what measures would, and what would not, be proceeded with; but he could not make any general statement of that kind at the present moment.
§ MR. HADFIELDwished to know what course was to be taken with respect to the Education Bill?
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the noble Lord had already stated that, though he did not intend to ask the House to pass that Bill this Session, he should still ask them to consent to a second reading of it. Such a course, he thought, would be extremely inconvenient; and he would ask the noble Lord at once, whether he would not consent to spare the House the annoyance of discussing at this period of the year the principle of a Bill which it was not intended to pass?
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, in asking the House to discuss the second reading of the Education Bill, his object had been to hear the various objections which might be made against the several clauses, with a view to introducing the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, after a full consideration of those objections. He must, however, reserve to himself the consideration whether or no he would proceed to that stage, with this view of hearing the objections, and of introducing the Bill next Session with a full knowledge of them.
MR. HUMEsaid, he would beg to inquire what course the Government intended to take with respect to the Registration of Assurances Bill?
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that as the Bill had been referred to a Select Committee, it was impossible for him to answer the hon. Member's question, without communicating with some of the Members of that Committee.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought that the progress of business would be very much facilitated if private Members who had Bills on the paper for Wednesdays, of little importance, or of too great importance to be discussed this Session, would give way to the Government Bills. With this view he begged to ask the noble Lord the Member for Colchester whether it was intended to proceed with the Factory Children's Bill, on the back of which he saw the noble Lord's name in conjuncton with that of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Cobbett), and which, he might observe, had been introduced early in July.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he thought the question would have been 203 much more conveniently put to the hon. Member for Oldham, in whose hands the Bill more immediately was placed. Having had no communication with that hon. Member, he could not answer the question.