PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNMENT BILL. (Hansard, 2 June 1848)

LORD CAMPBELL
in moving, pursuant to notice, that the Bill be read a third time that day six months, said, that he had delayed till the last stage taking so hostile a course, in the hope that the objections he had stated to the Bill would have been made by some alterations. But the measure appeared to be even more objectionable now than when the noble Lord had first introduced it; for the only Amendment which he had proposed would considerably add to the evil. His objection to the Bill was, that it was wholly nugatory; that it was legislating in vain, and trying to do by Act of Parliament that which the two Houses could do by resolution only, if they should be so minded.

§ LORD LANGDALE
My Lords, notwithstanding the objections of my noble and learned Friend, it appears to me that the House is much indebted to the noble Lord, who, by introducing this Bill, has brought a very important subject under your consideration. The inconveniences which the Bill is intended to remedy are very great, and are universally admitted. Bills are sent from one House to the other so late in the Session that from the usual mode of closing the Session, rather than from any necessity, they cannot be sufficiently discussed for want of time. If they are passed, it is without sufficient deliberation; if they are not passed, all the time which has been already bestowed upon them is thrown away. The remedy proposed is not intended to derogate from the prerogative of the Crown, or the privileges of either House; but when a Bill has passed one House and reaches the other at a period which, according to the usual mode of closing the Session, is too late to allow of sufficient discussion, it is proposed to enable that other House, by resolution made with the consent of the Crown, to adjourn the Bill without abatement till the next Session; providing that, if it should pass in the next Session even without alteration, it should nevertheless be returned to the House in which it first passed, to be there adopted or rejected by resolution. Thus an opportunity is given to the House in which it first 247 passed, of abandoning their own Bill, if further reflection or any new circumstances should have made it desirable to do so. As there does not seem to be any very good reason why a prorogation should interrupt the progress of a good measure, more than an adjournment for an equal length of time, this Bill may seem to err in not going far enough, and providing that all measures pending at the time of a prorogation should be resumed in statu quo in the next Session. This was, in fact, at one time proposed; but it was rejected by the House of Commons, principally, I believe, on the suggestion of Sir Edward Coke. The present Bill relates only to Bills which have passed one House, and are adjourned by the other by the consent of the Crown. The principal objection is raised on the supposed ground that the Bill is unnecessary. It is said that either House may pass Bills, after only one or as many readings as it may think proper. I shall not question the power of either House to dispense with its Standing Orders, or to adopt as many or as few readings of a Bill, or any other measures whatever, as occasion may require. But considering that usage has sanctioned the particular forms and the several steps which are now usually taken in the passing of Bills, and that these forms and successive several steps are not usually or satisfactorily departed from without special and sufficient reason stated on each particular occasion, it does not seem likely that either House would be inclined to dispense with the safeguards and precautions secured by the existing general orders, by a new general order applicable to the whole class of the cases now contemplated. I think, therefore, that there is no weight in the objection; and it does not appear to me that any inconvenience is likely to arise from the provision which is made for fixing a day for a resumption of the Bill within a short period of the commencement of the next Session. My Lords, thinking as I do that the Bill is calculated to be of some use, I willingly support the third reading; but I own it appears to me that it will not afford an adequate remedy for the inconvenience complained of, and that after it shall have passed, as I hope it will, further measures will be required; and having made that observation, I hope your Lordships will excuse me for stating my opinion that the best if not the only means of guarding against hasty, rash, and indiscreet legislation is to bestow adequate care on the 248 preparation of Bills before they are introduced into either House. A business so important ought not to be left to the diligence and caution of individual Members of Parliament, or even to the responsibility of particular Government offices, or Ministers, charged with other duties sufficient to occupy their whole time. No business is so difficult, or requires so much care, attention, and caution, as the business of making new laws; and I presume to think that no new law should be proposed by the Government without the official report of a responsible Minister, stating accurately and authoritatively what is the present state of the law with reference to the subject—what are the inconveniences which are found to arise from it—upon what principles it is proposed to provide a remedy—and how those principles are intended to be applied. If this were carefully done, we might reasonably hope to have less of rash and inconsiderate suggestion from ignorant and incompetent persons—less difficulty in dealing with such suggestions when made—less time wasted in idle and unnecessary discussions—more of useful deliberation, and less of hurry—a greater facility of preserving uniformity of enactment and expression—in short, better laws. And further, if proper means were taken to ascertain and correct the errors which must be found in almost every application of new laws, we might hope that the whole system of our laws would be gradually, effectually, and safely improved. But to do what ought to be done, towards attaining this great and important object, would require the constant and unremitting attention of Government, and the exclusive employment of a Minister charged with that particular duty. I conceive that by the constant attention and assistance of a Minister charged with the peculiar duty of attending to the affairs of legislation and justice, you might probably reduce to a small amount not only the inconveniences which this Bill is intended to diminish, but many other inconveniences of still greater importance. My Lords, I ought to apologise for saying so much upon a subject not immediately and directly under your consideration; though it seems sufficiently connected with it, not to be wholly irrelevant. I think this Bill likely to be useful, though not so effective as I could wish it to be; the discussion to which it will give rise may be more useful than the Bill itself. I feel obliged to the 249 noble Lord for introducing it; and I willingly vote for the third reading in the hope that the time may come when the House will be disposed to consider the more effectual remedy which I have taken the liberty to suggest.

§ LORD WHARNCLIFFE
supported the Bill, because it provided a remedy for an inconvenience which was gradually increasing, He would admit, however, with the noble Lord who brought in the Bill, that it was an imperfect mode of accomplishing the object which it proposed to effect.

§ LORD REDESDALE
objected to the Bill, because he believed it would altogether fail to remedy the evils which it was intended to meet.