The EARL of MINTO, seeing the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Lyndhurst) in his place, was anxious to ascertain whether it was his intention to proceed any further with the measure which he had introduced, for enabling each House of Parliament to take up in an ensuing Session, in the state in which they were left, such measures as might be in progress through either House at the termination of any Session? He asked this question in consequence of the intimation made by the noble Earl at the head of the Government, that there would be an early dissolution of the present Parliament. It was quite obvious that, in the short and hurried Session which would follow the general election, many measures might pass through one House, but for want of time might not pass through the other before the prorogation took place. He thought it was desirable, if possible, that a measure such as that introduced by the noble and learned Lord should be passed by the present Parliament, as it was possible that in the next Session their Lordships would have a good deal of leisure.
§ The EARL of DERBYBefore my noble and learned Friend answers that question, I beg to correct a misapprehension under which the noble Earl labours of what fell from me some nights ago, in answer to a question put to me by a noble Lord, as to the probable duration of the present Parliament. It has been alleged that, in answer to that question, I stated that the present Session would be one of an unusually short duration. I stated nothing which could lead your Lordships to form that opinion—in fact I cannot form any opinion myself as to the probable duration of Parliament. The duration of the present Session depends on circumstances over which I have no control. But I beg at the same time to say, that, so far as I can form any opinion of the duration of the next Session, so far from its being a short and hurried one, as my noble Friend seems to suppose, I have reason to think that, commencing as it probably will at an early period, it will be a Session of no ordinary duration. What I stated the other day, in answer to the question put to me on this subject, was to the effect, that I thought it was desirable that the autumn should not pass over without Parliament coining to a decision on a question deeply affecting the welfare of the country; but I certainly did not lead, nor did I intend to lead, the House 346 to the impression that there would be an early dissolution of the present Parliament in spring, to be followed in the summer by what the noble Earl calls a short and hurried Session. On the part of Her Majesty's Government, I made no such statement. With regard to the particular subject on which the noble Earl proposes to ask a question of my noble and learned Friend, I beg to observe, that whatever may be the views of my noble and learned Friend and myself with regard to the expediency of passing a measure to enable either House of Parliament to take up in a following Session a measure which was in progress through Parliament in a preceding Session, I never contemplated asking the House to sanction a measure for enabling us to continue in one Parliament a Bill commenced in another.
The EARL of MINTOsaid, he had been misunderstood by the noble Earl. He had understood the noble Earl to say that there would be an autumnal Session of the new Parliament; and also that no business except of a very urgent and important character should be discussed in the present Session. Assuming, therefore, that the Session might terminate before many Bills now in progress were passed through both Houses, he had thought it expedient that the measure of the noble and learned Lord should be urged forward.
§ The EARL of DERBYI certainly expressed my opinion that Parliament should meet in autumn, and that none but urgent business should be transacted in the present Parliament; and I also expressed an opinion that certain questions should be disposed of previous to Christmas, in order that the ordinary duration of the Session of 1853 should not be interfered with by the agitation of those questions. I contemplated, no doubt, an autumnal Session; but did not contemplate that which the noble Earl seems to anticipate, namely, an autumnal Session followed by a prorogation of Parliament.
§ The DUKE of NEWCASTLEsaid, the explanation now given by the noble Earl at the head of the Government was not in entire accordance with his understanding of what fell from the noble Earl on a former night, and, he was bound to add, with the understanding which prevailed with those noble Lords who then expressed themselves entirely satisfied with the answer; nor was it, in fact, in accordance with the general interpretation of the couutry. The noble Earl had certainly 347 stated the latter part of the answer he then gave with perfect correctness; but he thought the noble Earl would not deny that, in answer to the question which he (the Duke of Newcastle) put to him, he also stated that he did contemplate an early dissolution of Parliament; that he did think that it would not be right to persevere with any measures of legislation except such as were of instant urgency; and also—which was a point of the utmost importance, and which rendered his explanation the more satisfactory—he stated e would not pledge himself to the dissolution of Parliament on any definite day —a thing which he (the Duke of Newcastle) never asked him to do—he would not say whether the dissolution would be in the month of April, May, or June.
§ The EARL of DERBYI made no such statement.
§ The DUKE of NEWCASTLEmust really appeal to their Lordships whether it was not within their recollection that the noble Earl stated distinctly such words as he (the Duke of Newcastle) had quoted. If the noble Earl would say that he made that statement without consideration, he (the Duke of Newcastle) was perfectly ready to admit that the statement was so made; but if the noble Earl altogether denied having thus expressed himself, he must say that the noble Earl had forgotten the statement; for most unquestionably (and there were other means than his—the Duke of Newcastle's—recollection of ascertaining the fact) the noble Earl said he would not pledge himself as to the time of the dissolution—he would not say whether it should be in the month of April, May, or June.
§ The EARL of DERBYMy Lords, the noble Duke, I think, has misapprehended what fell from me on a previous occasion. I said on that occasion that I would not pledge myself as to the day upon which I should advise my Sovereign to dissolve the present Parliament. I stated that I could not name May, June, or July as the month in which I should advise a dissolution to take place; but I stated that I thought it was expedient that the autumn should not pass over without the new Parliament having an opportunity of discussing particular questions of great importance; and I added, in almost the words which I have repeated to-day, that I thought it was expedient that these questions should be disposed of before the ordinary period of assembling Parliament for the Session of 348 1853. My Lords, that statement I again repeat—beyond that I cannot and will not go.