§ MR. DISRAELI
said, he would suggest that it would be convenient to the House if some understanding were come to with respect to the mode in which the public business was to be carried on. On every day during that week there were to be morning sittings, but the arrangement had not been made in a formal manner. He begged hon. Gentlemen would consider what would be the consequences of having morning sittings every day. He felt he would not be able to bear a morning and evening sitting every day, and no one, he thought, could bear the consequences of an arrangement of that kind. Last year it was a later period before they had recourse to morning sittings to enable them to carry on their business, and they only took place on Tuesdays and Thursdays. But on every day during this week important business was fixed for morning sittings, while business of equal interest would occupy their attention in the evenings. On the next day the Metropolitan Improvement Bill would be taken, and in the evening there would be a Motion brought forward with respect to Decimal Coinage. The Capitular Estates Bill was fixed for a morning sitting on Thursday, and in the evening there would be a discussion on the colonial measure of the noble Lord. On Friday there would be also a morning sitting for the discussion of the Tenants' Compensation Bill, and in the evening there would be the adjourned debate on the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill. He thought that, as a general rule, the rule of last Session should not be exceeded, and that the morning sittings should take place only on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, that during the present week measures of great urgency had to be considered, but he thought that in future it would be better to adhere to the rule mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, that Tuesdays and Thursdays should be fixed for morning sittings. Last year, and also in the present year, the House of Lords had adopted regulations with respect to the period beyond which they would not consider Bills brought from the House of Commons, which made it important that the measures should be carried through the House of Commons so as to reach the House of Lords in due time. He was disposed to adhere to the rule that Tuesdays and Thursdays should alone be selected for morning sittings, un- 1830 less later in the Session, it should appear necessary to have morning sittings more frequently.
§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he saw that the Episcopal and Capitular Estates Bill was fixed for Thursday morning. That was a most important measure, with respect to which it was absolutely necessary to learn what was the opinion of the Government, and as yet they had expressed no opinion whatever on the subject.
§ MR. CARDWELL
said, that they were approaching the time when, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House of Lords, the House of Commons must dispose of the Bills which it was important to pass during the present Session. It was, therefore, important that the House should come to some decision on the subject of the law of partnerships in the present year, not only on account of the magnitude of the subject itself, but because the practice of granting charters by the Board of Trade in suspension of the general law seemed to be universally condemned. Therefore, he hoped that an early day would be fixed for the consideration of the Bill relating to that subject.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD
said, he was afraid that on the days when morning sittings were appointed hon. Members would reserve themselves for the business of the evening, and not attend to that which came on during the morning. Instead of fixing the Tenants' Compensation Bill for Friday morning, he hoped that he would fix it for some time when the English Members would have an opportunity of hearing the discussion.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, Friday had been fixed as convenient for those interested in the Bill. If it was not so, some other arrangement would be made.
§ MR. HENLEY
said, he must protest against the Scotch Education Bill being put down for a morning sitting, as he understood was proposed.
§ MR. BOUVERIE
said, that in fixing the second reading of the Limited Liability Bill for Friday, he must deny that there was any intention on the part of the Government to withdraw the measure.
§ MR. DISRAELI
said, he wished to observe that there were grave objections to taking the Scotch Education Bill at a morning sitting. He also hoped that the Irish Tenants' Compensation Bill would not be brought forward at a morning sitting, and certainly not on Friday next. It appeared that there was to be a Com- 1831 mittee of Supply on Friday and that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard) was to have an opportunity of bringing forward his Motion on that occasion; but this was not consistent with a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that other measures would be brought forward on Friday evening at a late hour. He wished the House to have a clear understanding upon this point, and he thought it would be more convenient if the hon. Member for Aylesbury brought forward his Motion as a substantive Motion, and not on going into Committee of Supply.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, the hon. Member for Aylesbury had stated that he would bring on his Motion on going into Supply, and it would be taken just as he moved it. He was not prepared to say that the Tenants' Compensation Bill would not come on at a morning sitting, but it would not be brought forward on Friday.
§ MR. V. SCULLY
said, he had come over from Ireland at great inconvenience, but he now found that he could have spent his week better in Ireland than here. He had fully expected that the Tenants' Compensation Bill would come on upon Friday.
§ Subject dropped.