HC Deb 25 February 1873 vol 214 cc902-19
MR. C. FORSTER

moved— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to take into consideration the expediency of summoning Parliament not later than the last week of November, in accordance with the Fifth Resolution of the Committee on Public Business, 1871. The hon. Member said that, whatever might be the opinion of the House as to the expediency of a November Session, yet the authority of the Select Committee ought not to be dismissed without discussion. This question carried him back to the early days of his Parliamentary life, because he brought forward a similar Motion to this in the Session of 1859. Although on that occasion Lord Palmerston succeeded in inducing the House to reject it by a considerable majority, yet he (Mr. Forster) had always felt that there was a complete answer made to every objection which had been urged against it. But the question did not stand in the same position now that it did then. It was no longer the mere opinion—or the crotchet, if they would—of an individual hon. Member; it came before the House clothed with the authority and recommendation of the Select Committee specially appointed to consider how the procedure of Public Business might be improved. No doubt he would be told that the Resolution was only carried by a majority of one vote in the Committee; but he wished to say that, though upon that Committee they had not a single party division, yet so various were the opinions entertained that most of their decisions were arrived at by narrow majorities:—indeed, the question as to the new rule in reference to Supply was carried only by the casting vote of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chairman of the Committee. When, however, they considered the character of those who composed the majority upon the Resolution now in question, it would be seen that that Resolution carried with it the greatest weight. The majority comprised within it the hon. Members for those great commercial centres, Hull, Liverpool, and Glasgow, and the Resolution was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), who had passed the larger portion of his life in the House, who had served in the highest offices under the Crown, and who must be in a position to form a most competent judgment upon the working of our Parliamentary system. He (Mr. Forster) never could understand by what perverse combination of circumstances the House of Commons, departing from its ancient usage, and in direct contradiction to the custom of every other representative Assembly, lost that portion of the year which seemed best suited to the transaction of Public Business, and was condemned to sit during the whole of July and a part of August in all the heat and discomfort of this over-crowded capital. He had always imagined that the practice came in a few years before the passing of the Reform Bill, and that, having got into a bad groove, they had found it difficult to retrace their steps; but they had been told by the highest authority upon the customs and usages of Parliament that the change was made at the time of the Union, for the convenience of the Irish Members. Whatever necessity of the kind there then was, it no longer existed. The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Vance) himself voted for the Resolution. There was one objection to the change which, if well grounded, would be fatal to it, and that was, that however early they might meet, they would not prorogue a day earlier—it was in vain for them to expect to be released from their labours before the inevitable 12th of August. If he shared that opinion, he should not make the Motion now on the Paper. He could assure the House that no one looked forward to the vacation with a keener relish than he himself did, and there was no one who would more strongly resent any attempt to curtail its duration. It was true that in the years 1852, 1855, 1857, and 1867, Parliament was called together in the autumn; but on those occasions they were summoned for special objects—to decide the fate of a Ministry, to pass an Indemnity Bill, or to make provision for a Crimean or an Abyssinian War; and when these special objects were attained they immediately adjourned. But if the Crown should be advised, as a rule, to call Parliament together in November, the Government might prepare its business accordingly. They might arrange for Private Bills in the first instance; then proceed with the Estimates and the organisation of Committees, so that they might be in full working order before the Christmas adjournment. They might resume business in February and prorogue about the 24th of June—the Queen's Birthday. He was told this change would cause a total reversion of the habits of society; but he never could admit that their social engagements should be placed in competition with their legislative duties, and that, yielding to the former, they should assent to sit in that House all through the dog days. He questioned, however, whether society would be a loser by the change he proposed, since London was an exception to every capital in Europe in respect of the time at which the Legislature assembled. He was also told that the Motion had excited the deep indignation of their sporting friends in the House, who considered it an unjustifiable interference with their legitimate pleasures. These pleasures were certainly not his pleasures; perhaps it was his loss that they were not. But they would believe him when he said that he would be the last to seek unduly to interfere with the pleasures of others. He must, however, remind hon. Members who made the objection that Mr. Wyndham sat in the November Parliaments, with whom sport was not only a passion but a conviction, and who in- variably defended the pursuits of the field on the ground of their beneficial influence on the national character. And yet, in retracing the history of those times, neither from Mr. Wyndham nor from any Members of the country party in those days did they find any complaint on that score. No doubt they often heard how, with the strong energy which marked that period, they managed to unite the two. It was recorded in the memoirs of an hon. Gentleman, for many years a Member of that House, and whose memory was still dear to sportsmen —the late Mr. Assheton Smith—that he was accustomed to hunt at Tedworth in the morning, and to post in his chariot and four to Westminster, and that after voting in the division, he never failed to keep his appointment at the cover side on the following day. Such, however, were the additional facilities afforded by the railway system in these days that hon. Members might now breakfast in London, hunt in the shires, and yet appear in the Division List the same night. Apart, however, from that, he would ask those hon. Members to consider how small a portion of the hunting season would be interfered with. Since meeting at the end of November, and adjourning for the Recess at Christmas, a month at the utmost would be all that would be taken from them. For this, what a rich compensation would they receive in being enabled to exchange the vitiated atmosphere of Westminster for the bracing air of the seaside or the mountain, and to indulge in all the varied enjoyments of country life during that portion of the year when the country was most enjoyable. He made the Motion under some disadvantage, since the House was now fresh from the leisure of the Recess; but it would be easy for hon. Members to recall the prostration and languor visible in the faces of those who remained at their posts until the last days of the Session. The only thought at such a time in the mind of the almost expiring Member was by what means he could gain his favourite country retreat. He sinks— Et moriens dulces reminiscitur Argos. It was clear that under the present system the business of Parliament was but imperfectly done. Nor could it be a matter of surprise that the Prime Minister, in company with an innumerable tribe of unofficial Members, was called upon at that fated period to administer the happy despatch to many of those measures which had a place in the opening programme, and some of which had been read a second time. He would give, for example, a summary of the business done and left undone in two Sessions—namely, those of 1869 and 1870. In 1869, 120 Bills were introduced, 67 of which were not passed. Of the latter 19 were Government Bills, and 48 Bills of private Members, 22 of which had been read a second time. In 1870, 126 Bills were introduced; 74 of them were not passed, of which 20 were Government Bills, and 54 Bills of private Members. The principles of 24 Bills were sanctioned by the House, but not passed. It frequently happened that the legislation of one Session was necessary to correct the errors of the previous one. He now submitted his proposal to the House under the conviction that it would prove most advantageous to the public interests, as well as to the health and convenience of the hon. Members generally. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Address.

MR. GOLDNEY,

in seconding the Motion, said, that having voted for the change now proposed in the Select Committee, he felt bound to support it now it was before the House. Four of the Committee's propositions had already been disposed of, and until the remainder had been dealt with, it would not be proper to appoint a new Committee, as the hon. Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) proposed, either in justice to the old or fairness to the new. Sir Erskine May stated before the Select Committee that, previous to the present century, the House had almost always met in the autumn. In the year 1801, the first Parliament after the Union, the House met on the 20th of January. In succeeding years it resumed the custom of meeting in the autumn, and, adjourning on the 20th of December to an early day in February, it closed its sitting at the latest in the beginning of July. In 1820, on the accession of George IV., Parliament began to meet at the end of January and continued down to the present time to meet then or at the commencement of February, except when some special business required it to meet before. No doubt those who were opposed to the Motion had precedent and usage in their favour. Something might be said for the inconvenience to which Irish Members in being called over, and Members living in the country in sacrificing some of their enjoyments, might be put. But although it might be a temporary inconvenience to some of the Irish Members and the lovers of field sports, to meet in the autumn, he thought on the whole hon. Members generally would derive great advantage by an arrangement under which the House could prorogue in June. His position, however, was this—that by the forms of the House a great deal of the early part of the Session could not be fully applied to the public business, Yet, nevertheless, Private Bill legislation lagged greatly behind. With respect to Private Bills, there would be one great advantage from the House meeting in November. This year there were 260 Private Bills, all of which had to be dealt with in some way or other. The House met this year on the 6th of February. It met at the same time last year. The 12th of March arrived before a single one of the Private Bills went into Committee, and the Committees on those Bills continued sitting until the 31st of July. But if the House met in November the Committees might be arranged, the whole of the Private Bills dealt with in good time, and Parliament might rise early in June. Then, with regard to public measures, at present a very large portion of the eloquence of hon. Members was expended before their respective constituents in the autumn without any reference to the forthcoming measures of Government. In fact, they knew nothing about them. If, however, there was an Autumn Sitting the chief business of the Government could be laid on the Table in November; and hon. Members, instead of dealing with phantom proposals, could go home and discuss real business with their constituents during the Christmas Recess, and then could come back to this House fully prepared to support or oppose the measures of the Government. His conviction was that if we had the month of November to go through the preliminary stages of legislation public business would be considerably facilitated, and not only the Members of the House, but the country would be benefited: therefore, he was desirous of seeing some plan adopted that would enable the House to rise earlier than they had been accustomed to in recent years. He had great pleasure in seconding the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to take into consideration the expediency of summoning Parliament not later than the last week of November, in accordance with the Fifth Resolution of the Committee on Public Business, 1871."—(Mr. Charles Forster.)

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, the proposal which he would substitute for the Motion of the hon. Member for Walsall was much more modest. The hon. Member proposed that the three Estates of the Realm—the Queen, the Lords, and Commons—should be convened for Parliamentary business in November, though he admitted that the present time of meeting was consistent with the habits of the country. The hon. Member wished, indeed, that London should conform to the usages of other capitals. It might be prejudice; but, for his own part, he had a vast preference for English habits, and therefore when the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) brought forward this Motion in the Select Committee he voted against it. The right hon. Gentleman carried his Motion in a full Committee by a majority of 1; he supposed the right hon. Gentleman, as the successor of the great Hampden in the representation of Buckinghamshire, had a preference for long Parliaments. It might be convenient for some Members that Parliament should meet in November; but there was one thing which would render it highly inconvenient to most. When the hon. Member for Walsall brought this question before the House on a former occasion, and recommended it by saying that Parliament could break up early in June, the question rose whether this promise of an early rising would be fulfilled. Lord Palmerston, who was then Prime Minister, convened a meeting of those nameless officers of either party in the House, familiarly called the whippers-in, of those who had served their time, and of those who retained their functions. He was one of them, and they were unanimous in the opinion, that if Parliament were to meet in November, it would rise no earlier than under the present arrangement. That was his deliberate opinion then, and it was his deliberate opinion still. If the House was to sit longer in consequence of the change, what would it gain? In the first place, such a result would have a deleterious effect on the House itself. He was convinced from what he had seen during no short experience, and especially in recent Sessions, that the House sat quite as long and as closely as was consistent with the convenience of those who really conducted the business of the country, out of as well as in the House. He was satisfied that if they were to alter the period of meeting, and extend the duration of the Session, the result would be that they would lose the most valuable Members of the House, and among these their senior Members, whose health failed already under the severity and prolonged duration of the Sessions. He did not look upon the proposed change in the light way in which it had been put before the House by the hon. Member for Walsall. If the change suggested would really be for the advantage of the country, and for the better representation of the nation, the House would long since have adopted it; but it was because the House had always been convinced that the change would be fraught with the danger of lengthening the Session that it had uniformly rejected the proposal that Parliament should meet regularly in November. If any extraordinary occasion should arise, He trusted that the Government of the day would be ever prompt to call Parliament together. And on such occasions Parliament had ever been, and he trusted they would ever be ready to attend. If they were to lengthen the Session, the difficulty of securing an adequate attendance during the latter part of it would increase, and he held there was nothing more injurious to the interests of the country than that this House should seem to sit when in reality it was not sitting. Nothing could be more mischievous than that the doors of this House should be open—that the light should be displayed from the tower, representing to the nation that the Commons were assembled—when in reality it was only a self-elected committee of the House that was sitting. The result would be to diminish, if not to destroy, Ministerial responsibility. The Minister would be able to cite a quasi-Parliamentary authority for everything he did. If the Sessions were to become more protracted, the House would be far more seldom really full—such a state of things, if habitual, would become a dangerous delusion practised on the country. The hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. C. Forster) said, that the House should not consult the convenience of hunting Members. He (Mr. Newdegate) was a sportsman, and could assure the hon. Member that he need not trouble himself on that score, for February, not November, was the month hunting men coveted for their sport. And if the House met before Christmas, and the Session was to be shortened, the House must meet later in the Spring; for when the House had once met business would always be found for it. The state of the Order Book proved this. On reference to the Order Book, he found that the Wednesdays had each one or more Order up to the middle of July. What was their difficulty at present? It was the encumbrance of the Order Book with more than they could undertake; and every change that had been made having a tendency to a more democratic representation had increased the difficulty. The longer the House was kept sitting the greater would be the pressure for the introduction of new matter. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) referred to the advantage, which he said would be derived from the introduction of Bills before Christmas, because they would then have a hundred small Parliaments discussing them during the Recess, and transmitting their views to Members. That was a rather democratic view to be taken by a Conservative Member. But with the facilities of communication which now existed, there was surely no lack of the transmission of opinion to the representatives of the nation in that House; while the practice suggested would keep up an agitation tending to supersede Parliament altogether. If Parliament sat for eight instead of seven months some of their most useful men of business would cease to be Members of the House. Wealthy men would still seek a voice in Parliament, and they would be represented by deputies; but he hoped never to see the House of Commons a House of Deputies. The House would then lose that quality, which the Americans called practicality; and the question of special compensation to the deputies would no doubt speedily arise. His Amendment was not intended as a mere negative to the Motion of the hon. Member for Walsall; he ventured to suggest the appointment of a Committee, not for the general and vague consideration of matters connected with the Business of the House, but to consider the time of day at which the House should assemble, the hours during which the House could most conveniently sit for the transaction of Public Business, when the business introduced by Her Majesty's Ministers should have precedence; what notice should be given of any proposal to alter the time at which the House would assemble; what arrangements should be made for the better distribution of business. He had endeavoured to embody those points, which appeared to need the immediate consideration of the House, with a view of economising the time they had for the consideration of Public Business. At the close of last Session there was an occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government did not inform them till Friday night that the House would assemble on Saturday; and to his certain knowledge that short notice excluded many Members from the possibility of being present. He thought that such an irregularity ought to be provided against. It had been said there was a feeling in the House against a Committee, and that the House disregarded the recommendations of Select Committees. Yet he submitted the House had adopted no new rule that had not received the approval of a Committee. Therefore, he thought the points he had indicated in his Amendment should be considered by a Committee. Notice had been given of the proposed renewal of the rule adopted last Session, that opposed Business should not be taken after half-past 12. This was an admirable rule, but its effect for more than a month before the close of last Session, in conjunction with the arrangement for Morning Sittings on Tuesday and Friday, when the House met at 2 p.m. for Government Business, sat till 7 p.m., resumed at 9 p.m., was to reduce the period allowed to non-official Members, though they had more than 100 Bills on the Paper, to nine and a-half hours a-week—namely, three and a-half on Tuesday, after the resumption of the Sitting at 9 p.m. till 12.30, and scarcely six hours on Wednesday. As for Fridays, a Standing Order gave precedence to Supply, and Motions on Supply probably lasted till 12.30. This amounted to an actual exclusion of unofficial business, and a Com- mittee ought to be appointed to consider how so absurd a position might be remedied. As for the precedence enjoyed by the Government at every Morning Sitting but those on Wednesdays, that precedence rested upon no Resolution ever formally adopted by the House. It rested only on the ruling of Lord Eversley in 1851, when the House met at noon, suspended Business at 4, and resumed at 6, an arrangement which, supposing the rule as to half-past 12 to apply, gave unofficial Members six and a-half hours, instead of, as last Session, only three and a-half on Tuesdays, and some prospect of a share of Friday evenings for the conduct of the Bills of which they were in charge. In the interests of the House itself, he would move, as a substitute for the hon. Member's larger proposal, the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

MR. GREENE

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to acid the words "a Select Committee be appointed to consider the time of the day at which the House should assemble, the hours during which the House can most conveniently sit for the transaction of Public Business, when the business introduced by Her Majesty's Ministers should have precedence, and what Notice should be given of any proposal to alter the time at which the House will assemble for the distribution of business,"—(Mr. Newdegate,)

—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. GLADSTONE

I confess it appears to me that there is no practice less conducive to the convenience of the House than the attempt to discuss two subjects at once. That attempt has just been made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Newdegate), and he has completely succeeded; for he has made two speeches upon subjects entirely distinct, delivered not one after the other, but on the same occasion while in the possession of the House, and by a most ingenious use of the privilege which he was undoubtedly entitled to claim. As to his proposal for a Committee, I intend to pass it by altogether; for this, if for no other reason—that it is perfectly distinct from a proposition of considerable interest which has already received the countenance of gen- tlemen of high authority, and that it is not possible advantageously to combine the discussion of it with the question of the appointment of a Select Committee. The hon. Gentleman, moreover, proposes a Committee, not to consider the Business of the House, but certain points of its business which have been selected at the hon. Gentleman's pleasure; so that he asks us to appoint a Committee, not for the purpose which is generally intrusted to such a body, but to consider the question only in the particular form which happens to approve itself to his mind. If the House should think fit to appoint a Committee, it will, as before, give it a much larger discretion than that which he proposes. As to the original Motion, I venture to make a criticism on its terms—namely, that it is rather an unusual proceeding for the House to address the Crown praying it to take proceedings in accordance with the 5th Resolution of the Committee on Public Business of 1871. I do not think the Crown is entitled to be so entirely cognizant of the proceedings of our Committees; but that is a point on which my hon. Friend (Mr. C. Forster) would, no doubt, be willing to meet our wishes if we thought his Motion had better be disembarrassed of those words. I confess there is another objection. I much doubt, with great respect to all who took part in the discussion, whether a subject of this kind, involving the use of the constitutional power of the Crown, was quite within the real scope of the reference to that Committee, which was appointed merely to consider details of business entirely within the power of the House itself. Of course, however, I do not question that, whether in that or any other form, it is quite legitimate to raise the matter for discussion by an Address, and in that sense I will say a few words upon it. Now, the question has thus far been discussed solely with reference to the views and convenience of the hon. Members of this House. The hon. Gentleman who last spoke (Mr. Newdegate) was most successful in that portion of his elaborate argument which was directed against any lengthening of the sittings of this House; but he was really tilting with an imaginary foe, for I am quite sure my hon. Friend is not the man to propose any lengthening of our sittings, and for my own part, if any hon. Gentleman proposed such a step, I, for one, should begin to have very serious doubts as to his sanity. I am aware that the Motion is not distinctly expressed; but there can be no doubt its meaning is, not that our sittings should be lengthened, but that the time of year during which the sittings are held should be altered. The hon. Gentleman who last spoke says the health of the House is better promoted by the present than by other arrangements. I confess that is not my experience. My experience is that the severity of the work of the House in years when we are so blessed as to have hot weather is at least doubled when that weather arrives for those who have to go through long hours. That is the really exhausting period of the Session. Then there is a very natural conflict, which has been sufficiently prosecuted on both sides, between the lovers of nature and the lovers of sport. I do not intend to enter into that conflict; but I wish to make an appeal on behalf of those who have not been mentioned. I had better, however, first say, dealing with the question as one of individual opinion, that I have long been in principle in favour of my hon. Friend's proposal; but I will show very good reasons why he ought not to press it, at all events for the present. I wish to put in a plea for the people of London. The sittings of the House regulate the movements of what is called the higher society of London. The close of the season depends upon, and somewhat precedes, the close of the Session, and the movements of thousands—perhaps of hundreds of thousands—of the people of London depend—not all of them directly—partly on the sittings of Parliament, and partly on the presence of fashionable society in town. Now, undoubtedly the effect of the present system, whatever its other merits may be, is this—to keep the largest portion of the population of London who are able to have a holiday in the country, in the metropolis through the hottest weather, and to send them away only at the time when the beauty and glory of the country are beginning to pass away. That is, in my opinion, a very serious defect in the present arrangement. The month of June is, perhaps, I may say, the most beautiful month of the year—the month in which most is to be seen and learnt of the beautiful operations of nature—and yet it is the month in which, with the exception of clerks in the City who have special arrangements as to their holidays, the population of London generally—the middle classes of London—never see the country at all— as they do in July very partially. But, Sir, although I am entirely of my hon. Friend's opinion, I own I think we ought not to come to a too hasty conclusion upon the subject of his Motion. I should be sorry to see my own opinion on the question carried out, and the measure necessary to give it effect passed through Parliament by only a small majority. If a change is to be made it ought, I think, to be made in compliance with the decided opinion of the House. It may be said, and with perfect truth, that the opinion of the other House ought also to be consulted. But, I think, when we take into account the very limited number of hours during which the other House sits, in comparison with the labours of this House, it will be generally and fairly admitted that the judgment of the House of Commons is that which ought to be sufficient to regulate the matter; still, I should be sorry to see a change made, except after a decided expression of the opinion of this House. Well, but then it is a very serious matter to consider what change we should make, if the House thinks it desirable to make one. If we make a change we should do so with our eyes open, and it appears to me that to meet at the end of November and sit for three weeks before Christmas would be of very little use. In practice, little progress would be made with the Public Business. It would, in fact, be just like the first two or three weeks of our sitting under the present system, and the real Business of the House would have to be encountered in January. Then, again, there is the very legitimate apprehension in the minds even of some who are favourable to the Motion of my hon. Friend, that even if something of the kind which he proposes were adopted we should still sit until August. That is a practical question and an important one; and if it could be proved that the apprehension was well-founded, then, like my hon. Friend, I should be ready to give the matter up, and promise never to say a word more about it. But on that point I wish to make two remarks. In the first place, it appears essential to the common sense of the thing that if an experiment of this kind is to be made it should be made, not as proposed by my hon. Friend, but that the first step should be, not that we should meet in November, but that there should be a prorogation in June. We should then have something in hand, and should not be such patient sufferers as we must be if we commit ourselves hastily to the words of my hon. Friend's Motion. But I will venture to give my opinion upon the question whether a meeting in November would or would not leave us certainly liable to sit until the usual time of the breaking up of the House. According to my observation the real regulator of the length of our sittings is the state of our financial arrangements, and not so much of what is commonly called finance—namely, the annual proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—as of the proceedings with respect to the Estimates. It is the progress and winding-up of the Estimates, and the introduction and passing of the Appropriation Bill which govern entirely, as I believe, with the rarest and slightest exceptions, the length of the Session of Parliament. There is, therefore, if I am right in that view, one way—and one way only—of securing an early termination of the Session, and that is by the early bringing forward of operations connected with the Estimates. If, therefore, the plan of my hon. Friend is to be adopted, the modus operandi should, in my opinion, be this:—The House must meet, not at the end, but at the beginning of November, and it would then have a sitting of something like six weeks before the Christmas holidays. During those six weeks it would be perfectly possible—the greater measures of legislation might, it is true, not have been prepared by the Government so early, but there is no reason in the world why—upon an alteration in the financial year, which is a condition precedent—the greater Estimates should not be ready, and why you should not get most of these greater Estimates out of the way before the Christmas holidays. The effect of that would be that, when you met after the Christmas holidays, you could at once face the legislation proposed by the Government, and there would not be the almost insuperable difficulty in regulating the claims of Estimates and the claims of the other important Business which we now have to encounter, because the Army and Navy Estimates would have been practically disposed of. But that, as I have said, would involve a change in the financial year in order to make the transition complete, and that could only be effected by Act of Parliament, and it would involve serious alterations in the social arrangements of London. The details of the question, very well worthy as they are of discussion, require serious consideration. I hope, therefore, my hon. Friend will not press his Motion to a division with the possibility of its being carried by a majority which would, after all, scarcely express the full opinion of the House. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman opposite will consent to withdraw his Amendment—with respect to which I may say that, if it is to have fair play, it ought to be the subject of a substantive Motion, and not brought forward as an Amendment to a matter from which it is essentially distinct—but I hope the hon. Gentleman may be disposed to withdraw his Amendment now. I hope, also, if the forms of the House will permit, that my hon. Friend (Mr. C. Forster) will allow his Motion to be withdrawn, inasmuch as the question is one of so much importance, involving such considerable consequences, and one upon which it is not desirable the House should commit itself to any opinion, except after a very full discussion of all the details and arrangements, and all the changes in those arrangements which undoubtedly it would require to give it effect. I hope, therefore, he will accept the suggestion I have made, and not press it to a division.

Mr. WHITBREAD

said, he was of opinion that some change in the time of the meeting of Parliament was required, and that upon two grounds. The first was that a very general wish prevailed that the Recess should commence when the hot weather comes on; and the second, that under the present system there was as a rule during the hot weather a very thin attendance of hon. Members, even when most important business was being transacted. For his part, he did not know of anything more serious than to see measures pushed through the House by the whole strength of the Government, with no independent opposition to criticize or check them. That was one of the great defects of the present arrangement, and it was one they ought all to desire to see done away with as soon as possible. He did not place much value upon the argument which had been used as to social arrangements in London, for he very much doubted whether, if Parliament closed a month earlier than it did now, it would make the least difference; because, practically, the London season terminated about three weeks before the prorogation of Parliament. Formerly the sittings of Parliament regulated the duration of the London season; but that was not the case now, for the season was at an end some weeks before the termination of the Session. But, desirable as he thought a change to be, that proposed by his hon. Friend he regarded as involving the maximum of inconvenience with the minimum of advantage. He much preferred the change which had been suggested to the Committee by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington)—namely, that the sittings of the House should commence in January, and believing it would be practicable, he gave it his support. If the House met in November they could hardly expect many hon. Members to come from Ireland and Scotland and distant parts of this country, and, after remaining in London three or four weeks, to go home again for another holiday of four or five weeks, before they returned to the House again. The probability was that not one half of the House would be in attendance, and they would see the very state of things at the beginning of the Session which they so much deprecate at the end. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion said that during the four weeks the Estimates could be brought in and the Bills advanced a stage. But they could not limit Parliament merely to first readings, and, in fact, they might have very important Motions proposed and a very indifferent House to vote upon them. There was this further objection to the Motion—that it would involve an undue curtailment of the holiday of Her Majesty's Ministers, and materially affect their health. In modern times, from the number of questions on all possible subjects which were asked and brought under consideration, Ministers were entirely engaged with Parliament during the Session, and almost the only opportunity they had of becoming practically acquainted with the busi- ness of their Departments was during the months which preceded the meeting of Parliament. They would not have time to prepare their measures before November. Even now Bills were often hastily drawn just before Parliament assembled, and if the proposed change were made the great legislative measures of the Session would have to be considered by the Government during the Christmas Recess. No difficulty of that kind ought to arise if Parliament met in January instead of November. With respect to the objection that if the House met earlier in the year they would not be likely to separate earlier, they should remember that the same body which met would have it in their power to regulate the time when their labours should be brought to a close. He did not doubt that if the House would meet one month earlier they could carry out the bargain they had made with themselves and rise one month earlier.

MR. C. FORSTER

said, that in deference to the request of his right hon. Friend, he would consent to withdraw his Motion.

MR. NEWDEGATE

desired to state, in answer to what had fallen from the Prime Minister, that he had adopted the particular form for his Amendment which he had selected because he had been informed that a Motion to appoint a Committee on the general subject of Public Business would be out of order, that question having been already decided. He would also withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that he should not be precluded from bringing the subject of it before the House on a future day.

Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.