§ MR. GOLDNEYrose to call attention to the present Rules of Debate. The hon. Member said, he had placed on the Paper a Notice of Motion for a Select Committee
to consider and report on the best means for facilitating the despatch of Public Business, and, especially, to inquire whether some limit might not be advantageously placed on Motions for Adjournment.The Rules of the House, however, precluded him from submitting any such Resolution. He observed that the necessity for doing something to facilitate the transaction of Public Business was felt by many hon. Members. Attention had been called to the subject in 1848, 1861, 351 and again in 1871. It had also been considered by Select Committees, and certain changes had been recommended, but the fear that the rights of private Members might be infringed stood always in the way. Being himself a private Member and one of some years' standing, he ventured to come forward to propose a moderate change, which would not have the effect of placing a minority at the mercy of an overbearing majority. He would, in the first place, point out that the number of hours which they sat was on the increase. During an ordinary Session they sat altogether some 1,400 hours, of which, at least, 150 were after 12 at night. The number of Motions that were recorded on the Order Book exceeded 10,000 in the Session. It seemed to him that some parts of the Rules and Orders were to a certain extent detrimental to the progress of business and to the convenience of the House. First there was the Rule that no Opposed Business should be brought forward after half-past 12. That Rule, which might be a very good one, applied even in cases where the Member who had given Notice of Opposition was not present, and he thought it might with advantage be altered to the extent of requiring that the opposing Member should be in his place when the Order was called. Another matter to which he wished to call attention was the frequency of Motions for reporting Progress or for the Adjournment of the Debate or of the House. For over a century—perhaps a century and a-half—it had been held in that House that it was necessary 40 Members should be present.Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
§ MR. GOLDNEYcontinued, by saying that so jealous were Members of Business being transacted by an inadequate number, that they allowed any Member to interpose and call attention to the fact that a quorum was not present. The point he desired to have specially considered was that, if it required 40 Members to carry on legislation, it ought to require a majority of 40 to say that it should be stopped, by adjourning the House or the Debate, or by reporting Progress, subject to the exercise of a discretion on the part of the Chair, de- 352 pendent in part upon the period of the evening at which the Motion was made. Early in the evening he might rule that the Business should proceed; later, that it should stop. In this way the rights of the minority might be fairly protected, and at the same time the Business of the House saved from undue interruption. Evidence had been given before former Committees by distinguished persons, including Speakers of the House, which was well worthy of consideration. After two or three Motions for the Adjournment of the House or of the Debate had been made, it might be rendered competent for any Member to move that the question in debate should be put, and the decision of the House taken. The practice of moving alternately the Adjournment of the House and of the Debate was one of very modern origin. It used at one time to be a Standing Order that, after a Motion for the Adjournment of the House had been negatived, another Motion for Adjournment should not be made until a new Motion had intervened, and it was contemplated that a substantial Motion should have been made; but in 1819, on the East India Bill, when a Motion for the Adjournment of the House had been negatived, Mr. Hume moved the Adjournment of the Debate, and the Motion not being questioned as to correctness, that seemed to have been accepted as a substantial Motion ever since. A rule, indeed, was made by the last Speaker that succeeding Motions for the Adjournment of the Hope should be made by separate Members and not by the same; but in Committee it was competent for any two Members to move and second the Motion alternately, though they could not do so in the "House" when the Speaker was in the Chair. When a Motion for Adjournment had been made, Members speaking thereupon ought to be confined by the Chair to the subject of Adjournment, and ought not to be allowed to speak on the Main Question. In past time the Speaker exercised more power than now, having since been controlled by precedents and Sessional Orders. These matters had been considered by Committees in 1820, in 1848, and in 1861, and might now fairly be considered again; for, while taking the greatest care not to interfere with the Rules which had grown up in the course of time, their operation ought to be 353 carefully watched to see that they did not conflict with changing requirements. Members were now occupied in attending the House for an average of nine hours a-day, in addition to which 250 were sitting on Select Committees and others on Private Bills; and having regard to the pressure of their duties, no duty could be more incumbent on them than to adopt any measures they could to lighten the burden of their labours and to expedite the transaction of the business of the country. These were some of the matters for consideration with a view to amendment, and on their account he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able on a future day to assent to the appointment of a Select Committee.
§ MR. NEWDEGATErejoiced that this subject was brought forward by his hon. Friend, for it involved a question of some importance. The hon. Member was proceeding, when—
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
§ House adjourned at Eight o'clock till Monday next.