QUESTION. (Hansard, 18 July 1859)

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir John Shelley), and other hon. Members, as well as himself, felt they had been very hardly treated by the noble Lord at the head of the Government in respect of the London Corporation Bill. When the late Government went out of office they left in certain departments the draughts of Bills that had not arrived at maturity. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, however, fastened upon these Bills like a Zouave, and evidently thinking that every draught left by his predecessor was fair political plunder, and might be turned into political capital, he laid his hand on them and submitted them to the House. The present Government, however, had proposed a Motion of want of confidence in the late Government in which he had concurred, and he could not therefore help expressing his astonishment that no sooner had the Government come into office than they appropriated all the measures of the late Administration, without considering the principles on which they had conic into office. He should not have complained if the Bill, for the Reform of the Corporation then before the House, had been brought in by the late Home Secretary. It would have been in accordance with the views entertained by hon. Gentlemen on the other side, but it was a marvel to him that the present Government should adopt such a measure. Yet the Government persisted in having it debated in the middle of July, and in forcing it through the House. Great numbers of hon. Members on his side of the House felt it to be a grievance that this Bill should be taken at twelve o'clock on Friday morning. They were invited to attend on Thursday to discuss the Budget, and was it to be supposed that after such a debate they would be prepared at noon the next day to consider a measure of the 1431 deepest political importance? Yet, after discussing this Bill until four o'clock on Friday, hon. Members were expected to come down again at six o'clock and resume the consideration of the Budget. Were hon. Members on the Liberal side to be subject to such coercion to gratify the morbid desire of the Home Secretary to adopt the Bills of the late Government, which were not in accordance with the political opinions of hon. Members sitting on the Ministerial benches? He protested against this mode of proceeding. He appealed to the noble Lord at the head of the Government not to proceed with the measure in this fashion, and not to rely upon the support of the Conservative party, while pretending to be at the head of the Liberal party. The noble Lord had, he believed, received assurances from the other side of their willingness to help him in carrying this Bill. But let the Bill be fairly discussed, and not burked at twelve o'clock in the morning.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, that of course the hon. Gentleman was free to have an opinion on the Bill which his right hon. Friend had brought forward, and when it came under discussion he would have an opportunity of stating fully the reasons why he thought it a Bill which the House ought not to adopt. But it was rather remarkable that the hon. Gentleman should object to the Bill being discussed at a morning sitting, because when the House acquiesced in giving a morning sitting to a Bill it was understood that hon. Members came to the discussion less fatigued than they were at a late hour of the evening. If the hon. Gentleman had any objection to the day, and would state it when his right hon. Friend was present, no doubt his right hon. Friend would consider whether the day were essential, and whether some other day could be conveniently selected. He must say that the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams's) charge, that he had the other evening exercised some constraint on the House in order to make it go on with the Estimates, was most unjust and unfounded. On that matter the House exercised its own opinion, and divided, and a very large majority concurred in the propriety of proceeding with the Estimates. If the decision of the House had been the other way, he should have submitted to it; and, indeed, the hon. Member for Lambeth submitted, though not in a very gracious manner, for he immediately put on his hat and left the House, which was as much as 1432 to say that he would not be a party to any of the proceedings.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he was not opposed to morning sittings, but he objected to meeting at twelve o'clock in the day, and then continuing to sit until two o'clock in the morning. The Corporation Reform Bill was a most important measure, and ought to be brought forward early in the evening; for in the daytime many hon. Members were engaged on Committees.

§ LORD FERMOY
said, that on general principles he was in favour of morning sittings, but as this Bill was likely to meet with great opposition, he did not think that there was the slightest chance of its passing during the present Session, and, therefore, he would suggest that it should be postponed till next Session.

§ MR. KINNAIRD
observed, that there existed great anxiety on the subject of the reform of the corporation, and he did not think that the Liberal party should object to the discussion of the subject. If the measure could not be passed in the present Session, still its discussion would facilitate its passing in the next as any measure of the kind must be first thoroughly ventilated.

§ MR. EDWIN JAMES
said, it was impossible there could this year be a fair discussion of the principles of this Bill. On the face of it the measure was utterly at variance with the Report of the Commissioners, of whom the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary was one. It left untouched several important abuses, such as the metage and wharfage; it disfranchised 10,000 of the livery at one swoop who had had no opportunity of discussing the question; and he feared there would be no sufficient attendance of hon. Members at a morning sitting to debate the Bill in the way it deserved.

§ MR. HADFIELD
said, he hoped that some special time would be fixed for the Education Vote, and that it would not be proceeded with that night.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
said, he wished to make one or two remarks in reference to what the right hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson) had said respecting the management of the Crown property. That was a branch of the Administration which ought to be watched with the utmost vigilance. He complained that the Government took out of the revenue what ought to be paid out of the capital of the Woods and Forests.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, he rose to order. The Vote to which the hon. Member was referring had been passed.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, that the hon. Member was not in order in replying to anything said in a debate on a Vote that had been passed.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
said, he would not reply to anything said in the debate, but would call attention to one or two points. The whole revenue of the Crown property amounted to £411,000. The expenditure of the Commissioners was £88,000; and the result was that the country was deprived of an amount of revenue which ought to go out of the Exchequer. There ought to be an annual statement laid on the table of the estimated expenditure by the Commissioners. He should on a future occasion take the sense of the House on that point.