Lords Sitting of 2 April 1868

MINUTES.
— Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Carrington after the Death of his Father.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Poor Relief nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes* (65).
Second Reading — Marine Mutiny; Mutiny*; Inclosure* (61); Medical Practitioners (Colonics) * (56).
Committee—London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance* (59).
Report—Indian Railway Companies* (63); London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance* (50). Third Reading—Consolidated Fund (£6,000,000).*

PRIVATE BILLS—THE EASTER RECESS.
On the Motion of The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES it was—
Resolved, That Standing Order No. 179. Sect. 1. be suspended; and that the Time for depositing Petitions praying to be heard against Private Bills, which would otherwise expire during the Adjournment of the House, be extended to the First Day on which the House shall sit after the Recess at Easter.

MARINE MUTINY BILL.
(The Earl of Longford).
MARINE MUTINY BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORD, in moving that the Marine Mutiny Bill be now read the second time, said, their Lordships would be aware that discussions occurred almost annually on the subject of corporal punishment in the army, when this measure and the other kindred measure which also now stood for a second reading—namely, the Mutiny Bill—were presented to the other House of Parliament. By the Bill of last Session the power of sentencing prisoners to corporal punishment was restricted to a very few cases of aggravated offences. This year the House of Commons had adopted a further Amendment, one not proposed by the Government, and not supported by any considerable authority—the effect of which was that sentences of corporal punishment in time of peace were wholly abolished for all classes of offences. It might be doubted whether it was altogether wise to withdraw that power from the military authorities; but he did not ask their Lordships to reverse the decision of the House of Commons. He could only hope that its effect would not be prejudicial to the efficiency and discipline of the army.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Longford).
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEsaid, that before the House agreed to the second reading of these Bills, he wished in addition to what had fallen from his noble Friend (the Earl of Longford), to point out to their Lordships the rather awkward position in which matters now stood. He certainly had no intention of asking their Lordships to make any change in the Mutiny Bill as sent up by the House of Commons; but it was only right their Lordships should understand the position in which the military authorities stood now that corporal punishment had been wholly abolished, without any other punishment whatever having been substituted for those offences for which it had hitherto been inflicted. Accodring to the wording of the Act as it passed last year, the power given to pass sentences of flogging was extremely limited, but it was still retained for the very grave offences of mutiny and insubordination accompanied by personal violence. The cases, therefore, to which that punishment was
  684
  applicable were cases of the most aggravated kind: and the position in which the Bill in its present form placed them was this—that whereas the power of inflicting that punishment for those offences had ceased to exist, no punishment of any other description had been substituted for it. There was a Royal Commission now sitting whose attention had been directed to that subject, and if that Commission had thought fit to report in favour of the total abolition of flogging, he apprehended they would have at least recommended or suggested some other mode of dealing with the class of offences which he had just indicated. But, as things now stood, nothing of that sort had been done, and those very aggravated cases under the Mutiny Bill were really unprovided for. It might perhaps be said a soldier could be shot for mutiny; but he asked their Lordships whether so extreme a punishment as that could be inflicted when flogging had been deemed too severe? The power of shooting a man on the spot was so grave that it could be justified only in the most serious cases. Therefore the military authorities were now placed, as he had said, in the most awkward position in this matter; and should they have any instance—as he hoped they would not—of aggravated mutiny or anything of that kind, in consequence of that portion of the Mutiny Act having been expunuged, he trusted their Lordships would clearly understand that the fault did not rest with the military authorities. At the same time he could not help thinking—though he was not the person to propose any alteration in the decision of the House of Commons—that this subject had hardly received the amount of attention which its importance deserved. He certainly admitted that the punishment of flogging was in itself degrading; but it was the deterring effect of a punishment to which they had to look, and he did believe there really was an immense deterring power exercised over the men by the knowledge that this punishment would be inflicted for gross misconduct. The civil law had lately adopted corporal punishment for various offences, and with what result? Since "garotting" had been visited with flogging they had had far fewer cases of that crime than before. That exactly illustrated what he meant by saying that this punishment had a great deterrent effect; and it was on that ground alone that the military authorities felt it was undesirable wholly to abolish it. Another serious point was this. He understood

  685
  that the present Mutiny Act was not intended to do away with that species of punishment when the army was in the field; but if it was done away with in time of peace, it seemed to him very questionable whether it should be inflicted the moment the army took the field—the time, above all others, when they desired to raise the tone and morale of the troops. The object of them all must be to keep the army efficient, not only in respect to general duty, but especially in its discipline. In this country an army not in thorough discipline would be most distasteful to the people, and they might depend upon it it would give great trouble not only to the authorities but to the public at large. He therefore hoped, as that punishment had now been struck out of the Mutiny Act, that the Royal Commission now sitting would give the subject its very gravest consideration. That punishment having been expunged from our military code without waiting for their Report, he repeated that he did trust the Royal Commissioners would now more than ever devote their most anxious and serious attention to the question of what substitute should be adopted for the very powerful means which had been placed in the hands of the authorities for preventing dangerous, troublesome, and undisciplined men from committing themselves in the way they sometimes did. He was the last man to stand up for any improper punishment; but he had thought it right that their Lordships should know the exact position which they now occupied as regarded the whole question of punishments in the army.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEsaid, he was not surprised that the illustrious Duke who was responsible for the discipline of the army had brought that subject forward. Very great concessions had been made by the Government in respect to it. Before last year, corporal punishment was applicable to no fewer than twelve different offences; but the Government on that occasion consented to restrict it to two—namely, mutiny and gross insubordination. It was true that under the old Mutiny Act flogging could be commuted to penal servitude, and he believed that under the present Bill also a soldier could be sentenced to penal servitude as well as to dismissal from the service. But penal servitude could be applied only in extreme cases; and as to dismissal from the service, even with ignominy, many soldiers would actually commit gross offences in order to get dismissed. Therefore, under that Bill, there was positively
  686
  no substitute for corporal punishment. He felt sure that it was always a painful duty for the illustrious Duke and for officers of the army to advocate the retention of corporal punishment in time of peace, but they felt that without it the discipline of the army could not be kept up, and he for one believed that a very large majority of officers were of this opinion. He regretted that the other House should have decided this question without waiting for the Report of the Royal Commission; and that the matter should there have been treated as a party question, the announcement of the numbers having been, it was stated, received with loud cheers from the Opposition. He trusted, however, that the change would not be detrimental to the service.
  EARL GREYalso regretted that the result of the division had been received in "another place" with loud cheers. Of late years new notions seemed to have sprung up as to the duties of an Opposition. It was certain that, in old times, it used to be considered the duty of those who had held high office under the Crown to be present when Motions of this kind came under consideration: but, on consulting the Division List, he found that not a single Gentleman who held office under the late Administration was present, to take part in the discussion, or to vote on one side or the other. Thirty years ago, when he was Secretary at War, this question of corporal punishment occasioned a great deal of excitement. There was a strong opposition to the continuance of corporal punishment; but he thought it his duty to resist the Motion for its abolition. He wished to restrict the punishment as much as possible; but he believed that entirely to do away with it in extreme cases would be dangerous to the service and disadvantageous to the really good soldier. The father of the noble Viscount (Viscount Hardinge) gave him the most able and efficient support in meeting this Motion, and it was very much owing to his aid and assistance that he was able to convince the House of the danger of agreeing to the Motion. When he subsequently sat upon the Opposition Benches he thought it his duty to assist the Government in resisting a similar Motion. Of late years, however, a new doctrine had sprung up, as to the responsibility of the Opposition. It used to be thought that the Members of the Opposition who had served the Crown were not less responsible than the Members for the Government, and

  687
  that they were bound to use their best efforts to prevent the passing of any measures prejudicial to the public service, and to give the House the benefit of their advice and official experience. These remarks were, he thought, called for by the conduct of those who were in Opposition both on one side and the other.
  EARL DE GREYsaid, he presumed the remarks of the noble Earl applied principally to his noble friend Lord Hartington, the late Secretary of State for War. But the fact was that he was a member of the Royal Commission to inquire into the question of the discipline of the army, and at an early period of the debate Colonel Wilson-Patten, also a member of the Commission and a Cabinet Minister, laid it down that no member of the Commission ought to take any part in the division. On Mr. Otway's Motion Mr. Gladstone paired against the Motion during the dinner hour, and the division came on unexpectedly during his absence. The noble Earl's own practice must have told him that Members who had held high office occasionally paired during the dinner hour. As the division came on sooner than was expected, perhaps this would account for the absence of the names in question from the division.
  THE MARQUESS OF EXETERsaid, he could confirm from his own experience the necessity for substituting some other punishment if they abolished corporal punishment. When he was at Gibraltar some men in certain regiments were in a highly insubordinate state, and two separate Courts martial were appointed to try the offenders. One of these Courts martial was presided over by a field officer of the Line, and the other by himself. Some of the men insulted the Court, and the only way in which order could be preserved was by sentencing one man to corporal punishment, and another to three months' imprisonment. This was effectual; but if flogging were done away with, he feared that scenes such as he had witnessed would often occur, greatly to the inconvenience of the service.
  EARL GREYexplained that he had not particularly alluded to the Marquess of Hartington; but it was the fact that no Members of the late Government voted against the Motion of the hon. Member for Chatham.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, that his noble Friend (Earl de Grey) had, he thought, entirely vindicated Lord Hartington. Without entering into the question of the expediency
  688
  of corporal punishment, it appeared to him that Her Majesty's Government might have inferred from the debate and division of last year, that whenever the question came on this year, there would be a very considerable majority in favour of the abolition of flogging. He thought that after the division of last year the Minister of War ought to have immediately appointed a Royal Commission to sit during November and December, and then, when the House met in February, they might have had the Report of the Commission, and their suggestions as to the best substitute for corporal punishment.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that the Secretary of State for War had been taken by surprise by the impatience of the House of Commons, and was not prepared to recommend at once a change in the system of military punishments. As a Royal Commission now had the subject under consideration, with the best means of forming a judgment, the Secretary of State would await their Report without taking any further steps. With regard to the conduct of the front Opposition Bench, as he might not be a good judge, he would rather leave that question in the hands of the noble Earl on the cross Benches (Earl Grey).
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly; Committee negatived, and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  MUTINY BILL read 2a (according to Order): Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

  POOR RELIEF BILL [H.L.]
  Select Committee on: The Lords following were named of the Committee:—

  L. Abp. York

  E. Ducie

  D. Richmond

  E. Ellenborough

  M. Salisbury

  E. Kimberley

  E. Devon

  V. Eversley

  E. Denbigh

  L. Clinton

  E. Hardwicke

  L. Egerton

  E. Carnarvon

  L. Northbrook.

  E. Grey

PUBLIC PETITIONS—APPOINTMENT OF A SELECT COMMITTEE.

  PRINTING PETITION'S.
  EARL RUSSELL moved (according to Notice)—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to whom all Petitions presented to this House shall be referred, with Instructions to the said Committee to report whether any of the Petitions so referred ought to be printed for the Use of this House."

  689
  It very frequently happened that the Petitions presented to the House contained matters of great importance, and which would be of great use to their Lordships in subsequent discussions.
  LORD REDESDALEthought that the adoption of the proposal would entail considerable expense with no corresponding advantage, for the Petitions would very seldom be read by anyone. It was open to persons who desired publicity to be given to a particular Petition to print and circulate it for the benefit of the public and of the Post Office. It was likewise in the power of any noble Lord to propose that a Petition be printed, in which case the House would decide whether it was advisable that it should be done. The question had been discussed on previous occasions, and it had always been thought better to adhere to the existing practice. He should like to hear the opinion of noble Lords on the subject; because there could be no objection to deal with it according to the general sense of the House.
  EARL STANHOPEgave his cordial support to the proposal. He was of opinion that the printing of Petitions might, in many cases be very useful. The only doubt he entertained was rather as to a point of form. The noble Earl proposed that the Committee should report to the House what Petitions should be printed. Now, he thought it would be a great saving of time if the Committee should have power at once to order the printing of such Petitions as they might think advisable. Such, he believed, was the case with the Committee of the House of Commons.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, as he understood the proposal of his noble Friend (Earl Russell), it would not interfere with the power which any noble Lord had now of moving that a Petition be printed.
  LORD LYVEDENapproved the suggestion made by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Stanhope) that the Committee should have power to order Petitions to be printed.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, as far as his own opinion was concerned—for this was not a Government question—he saw no objection to the proposal of the noble Earl (Earl Russell) except that it would entail some expense. At the same time, he thought some Petitions might be very usefully printed. At present the public were under the impression—not a very
  690
  wrong one—that very little attention was paid to Petitions presented to Parliament, and, perhaps, the adoption of this Resolution might give a new impetus to the presentation of such addresses. As to the proposal of the noble Earl, interfering with, the right of any Peer to move that his Petition be printed, he apprehended it would have no such effect. The fact that a Peer had made a Motion to have his Petition printed, if the House agreed to it, would supersede the necessity of the Committee ordering the printing of the same Petition.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he had no objection to adopt the noble Earl's (Earl Stanhope's) suggestion that the Committee should have power at once to order the printing of Petitions.
  LORD REDESDALEthought the practice of printing Petitions might be very much abused. A person might present a pamphlet in the shape of a Petition, and have it printed at the public expense. He only hoped when the Petitions were printed that their Lordships would read them.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that the Committee, of course, would exercise a discretion with respect to the Petitions that should be printed, and he thought that power might very well be given to them.
  Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEYAfter a few words from Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY,
  Motion amended, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That a Select Committee be appointed to whom all Petitions presented to this House, other than Petitions relating to Private Bills, shall be referred, with Instructions to the said Committee to direct the printing for the Use of the House of such Petitions as they shall think fit.—(The Earl Russell.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  RESOLUTIONS.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY, who had given notice to move the following Resolutions:—

  1. That it is expedient that Notice of an Intention to ask a Question should be given in the Minutes, except in Cases which admit of no Delay:

  2. That the Committee of Selection are desired to exercise their Discretion in calling for the Service of Lords absent from the House:

  3. That in future, in entering the Reports of Bills amended in Committee of the Whole House in the Journals, instead of the Report of such Amendments being entered as made formally by the Chairman of Committees, the Name of the Lord who moves the Reception of the Report and takes charge of the Bill in that Stage be substituted.

  691
  said, he would direct their Lordships' attention to a subject which had been discussed on Thursday evening—the Report of the Select Committee upon the Conduct of Business in their Lordships' House. It appeared to him at that time that the best way to proceed would be for their Lordships to assent to the Report, and that the recommendations of the Committee should be discussed in detail afterwards, at their Lordships' discretion. He had inferred, however, from the debate of the other night, that their Lordships would prefer that the recommendations of the Report should be embodied in a set of Resolutions to be proposed seriatim. That wish of their Lordships he had endeavoured to Carry out. He thought the most convenient course would be to move the Resolutions separately, and their Lordships could discuss them one by one as they were moved. He begged to move the first Resolution.
  Moved to resolve—
  "That it is expedient that Notice of an Intention to ask a Question should be given in the Minutes, except in Cases which admit of no Delay."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, he thought that the Resolution of the noble Earl went beyond the recommendation of the Committee, and, if carried, would put a stop to many Questions which might be fairly asked without notice. In the other House of Parliament there was a very convenient usage, no discussion being permitted on a Question being asked. He concurred in the opinion that it was not desirable to stop the putting of Questions in all cases without formal notice; but, at the same time no Question which was at all likely to give rise to debate ought to be put without notice having been given. The proposal of the noble Earl, in its present form, might put a stop to a number of Questions that were not likely to raise debates; and it was scarcely expedient to go quite so far as that.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he saw no objection to the Resolution as proposed. It would have the effect of stopping any noble Lord from putting a Question at ten minutes past live o'clock, and thus initiating a debate which might last a considerable time, to the great inconvenience of those noble Lords who had given notices. He thought it might fairly be left to the discretion of noble Lords not to put Questions early in the evening without notice, unless they could be answered at once by the
  692
  heads of Departments, or unless it was apparent that the Question was such as to show the propriety of suspending the rule in that instance.
  LORD TAUNTONsaid, he did not think the present practice of the House led to any serious inconvenience, for noble Lords usually gave notice of Questions when they were of such a character as probably to give rise to discussion. He thought it undesirable that any positive rule should be laid down.
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, that the Resolution carried out the intention of the Committee in making the recommendation. In the other House, the Speaker would stop any Member seeking to put a Question without notice, as being contrary to the rules of the House. In their Lordships' House, however, they had no similar functionary whose duty it would be to stop any irregularity. The great point to be attained was, no doubt, to put a stop to the practice of putting without notice Questions which were likely to give rise to debates.
  EARL GRANVILLEsuggested that the noble Earl should vary the Resolution, and follow more precisely the words of the Committee. This would stop the practice of putting Questions without notice, when there was no necessity for haste; but would not prevent the putting of urgent Questions, although they might possibly give rise to discussion.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, there ought to be some rule on the subject which should be sufficiently distinct to prevent debates being raised upon Questions; but the rule could always be suspended in cases in which the House might think discussion desirable.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that if their Lordships followed the precise words of the Committee they might not attain the object the Select Committee had in view. That object was not merely to prevent the putting of Questions without notice; for that object might easily be gained by the refusal of the Minister or the other Member of the House to whom the Question was addressed to give an answer until he should have had an opportunity of informing himself upon the subject to which it related. The real evil was the debate which was sometimes raised by putting a Question. It had been complained that Questions had been put and discussions raised without notice; and it went forth to the public that many noble Lords who might have been most anxious

  693
  to express their opinions on the subject had been denied the opportunity of so doing. That was the evil which had to be remedied; but what he was afraid of was that the Resolution would, on the one hand, operate to prevent Questions being put which might very conveniently be asked; and, on the other hand, it would not check discussion, because, without a Question, by other devices easily specified, any Member of their Lordships' House might initiate a discussion upon any subject. He suggested that the Resolution, instead of taking the form which had been proposed, should be in these words—
  "It is desirable, where it is intended to make a Statement, or raise a Discussion on asking a Question, that Notice of the Question should be given in the Minutes and Orders of the Day."
  He therefore proposed that the following Resolution should be substituted for the proposed Resolution:—
  "That it is desirable where it is intended to make a Statement, or raise a Discussion on asking a Question that Notice of the Question should be given in the Orders of the Day and Notices."
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYconsidered that the suggestion of his noble and learned Friend would be on improvement upon his Resolution, and proposed that their Lordships should adopt it.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Then it was moved to resolve,
  That it is desirable where it is intended to make a Statement or raise a Discussion on asking a Question that Notice of the Question should be given in the Orders of the Day and Notices.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEwarned their Lordships against the proposed alteration, which he conceived was opposed to the spirit of the privileges and usages of that House from time immemorial. The Resolution which they already possessed, providing that the Business on the Paper should be proceeded with at a quarter past five o'clock was quite sufficient, and he preferred it to the one now moved. It would be very injudicious for their Lordships to bind themselves down in the manner now proposed.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, his noble Friend who had just sat down did not seem aware of the precise grievance which it was sought to remedy. He was surprised that one who had attended so closely to the debates in that House as his noble Friend should not have been aware of numerous occasions on which a noble Lord, who had
  694
  only given a private notice to the Minister of the Crown, had risen a few minutes before a quarter past five o'clock, and made an hour's speech in reference to a matter of which the House had not been apprised. The consequence was that, the House having had no notice of the Question, the debate which might otherwise have been of general interest was confined to the noble Lord who put the Question and to the Minister of the Crown. He thought that the debates of the House had suffered materially from the existence of that practice. The objections to the Resolution were met by the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
  Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYmoved the second Resolution—
  "That the Committee of Selection are desired to exercise their Discretion in calling for the Service of Lords absent from the House."
  LORD REDESDALEexplained that the Committee of Selection had already the power of proposing the name of any Peer; but, as a matter of fact they did not propose Peers who were known to be absent, nor any Peer without first communicating with him. The object of this Resolution seemed to be to direct the Committee of Selection to be less careful about obtaining the consent of a Peer before nominating him on a Committee. He saw no reason why the Resolution should not be adopted.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEremarked that the Committee of Selection did exercise their own discretion at present.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he wished to see adopted much the same system as was adopted in the House of Commons with regard to Members selected to serve on Committees. Many Peers who were perfectly able to perform these duties avoided doing so by absenting themselves from the House, except upon great party debates and divisions; and thus the matter had an important bearing on the attendance in that House — a subject which had been commented on out of doors. This was a great grievance, which he should like to see put an end to. Then, again, many young Members of the House—having made their engagements for the next month, whether for pleasure, business, or otherwise—now refrain from coming down to the House, where they might train themselves for taking part in its discussions, from a fear that if they showed their faces there they might be pounced upon by the noble Lord

  695
  (Lord Redesdale), or the other Peers who selected the Private Bill Committees.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he was sorry if any noble Lord stayed away from the fear of being asked to serve; because it had not been his practice to ask any Peer to serve on a Committee when he could plead any important engagement, or any other sufficient reason. Owing to the time when the Private Business came up to their Lordships' House, it would be impossible to appoint their Committees by rota in the manner adopted in the other House. At first they might find many Peers willing to serve, while few would offer themselves afterwards, and some would have to serve twice; but there would not be the same disposition as was now shown to undertake those duties voluntarily. The present system, even when there was a considerable pressure of business, worked well.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONwished the Resolution could be brought back to the original form in which it stood in the Report of the Committee; and if the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) gave the House an opportunity of dividing on his proposition, he would support him. The Resolution, as it now stood, was mere surplusage, as it only asked the Committee of Selection to exercise a discretionary power, which they already exercised.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, the proposal of his noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal was not that the House should give a discretion to the Committee of Selection which they already possessed, but that they should be requested to exercise that discretion when deemed advantageous.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, what was really desired was that the absence of a noble Lord from that House should not exempt him from serving. He would, therefore, suggest the adoption of words to this effect—
  "That the Absence of any noble Lord from this House, except on sufficient Reason, ought not to prevent the Committee of Selection from calling for his Services."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYpreferred the words just suggested to those proposed by the Lord Privy Seal; and he trusted that the Resolution, when adopted, would not remain a dead letter. It was both desirable and just that Peers who were in the habit of absenting themselves from the House should be called upon to serve on Committees when their services were required.
  EARL STANHOPEopposed the Resolution, which he regarded as open to great practical objection.
  EARL COWPERsaid, that some years ago he moved for a Return of the number of Peers who had served on Committees. He believed that in the year to which the Return referred only 120 Peers out of the whole number of Members of their Lordships' House had served on a Committee at all. The consequence was that many Peers had been obliged to serve twice; and, besides the Chairmen of the different Committees, one Peer had served on three Committees. Thus a heavy burden was entailed upon conscientious Peers by the idleness and default of others. The system under which the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) obtained Members to sit on Private Bills must remind their Lordships of the system of recruiting for the British army. There was one great difference certainly; for he had never heard of the noble Lord offering anyone anything to drink; but he was obliged to go round and to whisper first to one and then to another, holding out hopes where he could that the inquiry would not be a very long one. He should be sorry to see a system of conscription adopted for the British army; but a well-managed conscription for compelling the Members of that House to take their fair share in Private Business would be a very good thing.
  LORD CHELMSFORD moved an Amendment—
  To leave out from ("Selection") to the end of the Motion for the Purpose of inserting the Words following, ("should in the Exercise of their Discretion call more frequently than at present for the Service of Lords absent from the House.")
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYcould not agree to the Amendment.
  EARL STANHOPEthought that the Amendment of the noble Viscount (Viscount Halifax) exactly met the wants of the case.
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Then it was moved to resolve,
  That the Absence of any Lord from this House, except for sufficient Reason, ought not to prevent the Committee of Selection from calling for his Services.—(The Viscount Halifax.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Then it was resolved—
  That in entering in the Journals the Reports of Bills amended in Committees of the Whole House, the only Name entered therewith shall be that of the Lord who moves the Reception of the Report and takes Charge of the Bill in that Stage.—(The Lord Privy Seal.)

  BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Law of Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes—Was presented by The Lord SOMERHILL; read 1a. (No. 65.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.