Lords Sitting of 15 March 1889

DURATION OF SPEECHES IN PARLIAMENT BILL. (NO. 21.)
A Bill to ascertain and limit the duration of speeches in Parliament—Presented by The Lord Denman; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next.
WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE BILL. (NO. 22.)
A Bill for extending the right of Voting at Parliamentary Elections to duly qualified women—Presented by The Lord Denman; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND). QUESTION.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Seeing my noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland in his place, I wish to ask him a question of which I have given him private notice—when it is proposed to introduce the Local Government Bill for Scotland, which was announced in the Queen's Speech? My noble Friend is aware that the meeting of the Commissioners of Supply will take place at the end of April, and that of the Convention of Royal Burghs in May; and it would be a great convenience to these bodies, who are largely interested in this matter, if the Bills can be introduced in sufficient time to allow of their being considered by those bodies at their meetings.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: In answer to my noble Friend, I am afraid I am not able to give any very positive undertaking as to when the Local Government Bill for Scotland will be introduced. It is proposed to bring in
1746
the Bill in the other House, but the time of its introduction will depend on the state of public business in that House. At the same time I can assure my noble Friend that the Government are anxious to bring in the Bill at the earliest possible opportunity, and one of the reasons for their being thus anxious is, that these bodies—the Commissioners of Supply and the Convention of Royal Burghs—may have an opportunity of considering the Bills at their meetings.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE.

  REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL(Earl CADOGAN): My Lords, on the last occasion when the Report of the Committee appointed by this House to examine the Standing Orders of the House referring to public business was discussed, it appeared to be the unanimous opinion of your Lordships that an opportunity should be afforded to the House to discuss each and all of the proposed Amendments in detail, and also that such discussion could more conveniently take place when the House was in Committee. I have not been able to find any actual precedent for such a course, but I do not see any valid reason why one should not be created, and if it be the pleasure of the House, I will move that the House now dissolve itself into a Committee to consider this Report.
  Moved, That the House do resolve itself into a Committee to consider the Report of the Select Committee on the Standing Orders of the House of Lords relating to the conduct of public business (L. Privy Seal [E. Cadogan]), agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, before any of the Standing Orders in which the

  1747
  Committee have made any alteration are reached, there is one in respect of which a notice of Amendment has been given by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Fitz Gerald).
  LORD FITZ GERALD: I must ask your Lordships to pardon me for proposing the Amendment of which I have given notice, or for intervening at all in questions concerning the Standing Orders, because I must admit that I do not carry with me the aid of any experience, but my great object is to keep these Orders right in point of law, and possibly I may be able to give the House a little assistance in that view, and in that view only. Now, if your Lordships will look at Standing Order 2 on page 5, it is—
  "At the beginning of a Parliament, after prayers shall have been said, and the Lord Chancellor shall have taken the oath appointed to be taken, according to the Act of Parliament made for that purpose."
  Your Lordships will recollect that these Standing Orders were arranged by the Committee last year, and I believe they were published before the Autumn Recess. But during the Autumn Sitting a very important Act of Parliament passed. The Bill was first of al brought into the Commons by Mr. Bradlaugh, and altered by the Solicitor General, and in this House it was taken up by my noble Friend, whose absence at this moment I regret (Earl Spencer). That Act made a very great alteration in the law. According to the law as it now stands, the Lord Chancellor is not bound to take any oath. This Standing Order proposes to put upon the Lord Chancellor the obligation of taking an oath—the oath appointed by a previous Act of Parliament. The Act passed in the Autumn Session of last year applies to every oath from that of Her Majesty the Queen down to that of Her humblest subject. If a person says that he has a conscientious objection to taking the oath, or that it is contrary to his religious opinion to do so, or if he says he has no religious opinions, then in either of those cases, upon making that declaration, he is entitled, in the place of an oath, to make a solemn affirmation. Now, in the case of a Lord Chancellor who objected to take the oath on either of the grounds stated, the Act would allow him to make an affirmation. That state of the law
  1748
  renders this Standing Order, as it is now proposed, inconsistent. The Amendment which I propose in this Order is, after the worth "oath," to insert the words "or solemn affirmation."
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Duke of BUCKINGHAM and CHANDOS): I think it will be my duty to point out to the House that it is not in accordance with the practice of the House to discuss an Amendment to a Standing Order without notice has been given referring to that particular Standing Order. The present position is that the House has resolved itself into Committee to consider the Report of the Select Committee on the Standing Orders—the Select Committee have not reported upon this particular Standing Order; it has only reported upon those which are proposed to be amended, added to, or omitted. I think it my duty to draw the attention of the House to that.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS The Marquess of SALISBURY): I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Herschell) whether he agrees in the view put forward by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Fitz Gerald) that the Standing Order as proposed would be inconsistent with the recent Statute allowing affirmation in place of oath?
  LORD HERSCHELL: The Act referred to simply says that on all occasions upon which an oath is required by any Act of Parliament an affirmation may be substituted.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But unfortunately this Standing Order is not an Act of Parliament.
  LORD HERSCHELL: The Act provides that "in all cases where an oath is required by law to be taken" an affirmation may be substituted, and I take it that the requirements of this Standing Order would come under those words.
  LORD FITZ GERALD: This depends upon the construction, not of the Standing Orders, but of the Act itself, and the words of the Act are—
  "That every person objecting to be sworn, and stating as the ground of such objection either that he has no religious belief, or that the taking of an oath is contrary to his religious belief, shall be permitted to make a solemn affirmation."

  1749
  I take it that the Amendment I propose is necessary in order to keep the Standing Orders according to law.
  LORD GRIMTHORPE: Surely the noble and learned Lord (Lord Herschell) is right, because this oath is made under an Act of Parliament, not created by the Standing Orders.
  EARL CADOGAN: I think, after the explanation that has been given by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Herschell), the noble and learned Lord (Lord Fitz Gerald) will feel that his Amendment is not necessary. With regard to the objection suggested by the noble Duke in the Chair, I should not wish to press any objection of that kind, because I am sure the House will be glad to discuss Amendments to any of the Standing Orders, although they are not affected by the Report of the Select Committee.
  LORD FITZ GERALD: I am afraid I must withdraw the Amendment, as I do not find my views receive any support.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  EARL CADOGAN: The first Amendment suggested by the Select Committee is on page 10, Standing Order No. 4. It is proposed, at line 12, to leave out the words—
  "Though they shall desire the same."
  I will read the sentence—
  "No such Peers may or shall be introduced into the House of Peers by any herald, or with any ceremony, though they shall desire the same."
  It is proposed to leave out the latter words.
  Amendment agreed to.
  EARL CADOGAN: The next Amendment I have to move is on page 12. This is the insertion of a new Standing Order No. 16A—
  "The absence of any Lord from this House, except for sufficient reason, shall not prevent the Committee of Selection from calling for his services."
  I may point out that this is taken verbatim from a Standing Order which stood in the former Orders which will be found in the Appendices.
  The addition was agreed to.
  EARL CADOGAN: The next is also an addition No. 16B—
  "Lords may obtain leave of absence at the pleasure of the House upon cause shown."
  The addition was agreed to.
  EARL CADOGAN: Next, I beg to move the omission of Standing Order No. 17, which is on page 12, and which reads—
  "When the House is sitting, every Lord that shall enter is to give and receive salutations from the rest, and not to sit down in his place unless he hath made an obeisance to the Cloth of Estate."
  Omission agreed to.
  EARL CADOGAN: The next Standing Order which is proposed to be altered is Standing Order No. 20. It is proposed that the provision as to business of which notice has been given and as to Private Bill proceedings shall read as follows:—
  "Any business for which notice is not required, and all proceedings relating to Private Bills, may he entered upon before the Notices of the day are called for; but the House will proceed with the Notices in preference to other matters at any time after half-past Four o'clock, at the request of any Lord who may have a notice on the Minutes."
  The time mentioned in the present Standing Order is a quarter-past 5.
  The Amendment was agreed to.
  EARL CADOGAN: Then, my Lords, it is proposed to add at the end of Standing Order 20—
  "If at the close of the speech of any Lord it shall be moved that the business then in hand be adjourned, or, the House being in Committee, that the House be resumed, and it shall be so ordered, it shall be lawful for the House thereupon, without notice given, to make further order that the business in question shall be taken first, either at some later hour of the evening or on some future sitting-day to be then fixed."
  The object of this, as I explained to your Lordships on the last occasion of our discussing these Standing Orders, is to provide not only that the House shall be enabled to adjourn any business at any given time, but that it shall be possible to take up the question which has been so adjourned either later in the evening or first in order at the next Sitting of the House.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsuggested that instead of the Amendment being added to Order 20 it should form a separate Order.
  EARL CADOGANagreed to the suggestion.
  The addition was agreed to.
  EARL CADOGAN: The next alterations are on page 16 in Order 24. First of all there is the addition of the words—

  1751
  "Except by permission of the House."
  after the words—
  "Every Lord is to speak standing and uncovered."
  I will first move that addition.
  The addition was agreed to.
  EARL CADOGAN: Then it is proposed in the same Order to strike out the words prohibiting our calling one another by our names, instead of referring to one another as we do at present simply as noble Lords. My Lords, the object of the proposed change in reference to our mode of alluding to each other in debate is that it has been found inconvenient and almost impossible to describe accurately the noble Lord to whom reference is meant to be made. Another inconvenience has been found to arise—namely, that in newspaper reports of speeches, where a noble Lord has been referred to, it has frequently happened that the reporter has inserted in brackets the name of some noble Lord other than the noble Lord actually referred to. I may point out that the alteration leaves the matter entirely permissive; it does not prevent any Peer from alluding to noble Lords present in the way in which we have hitherto done, but it does not prohibit the calling by name.
  LORD DE ROS: I cannot see any argument in support of this Amendment. As the Order stands, it has been in operation for a very great number of years, and I think that if we addressed each other by name it might be, in some cases, invidious. Surely the reporters can easily find out who the Lord is to whom reference is made as "the noble Lord who spoke last," or "last but one," and so forth.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I wish, my Lords, to record my experience of the extreme clumsiness of the present practice. It is almost impossible, sometimes, to indicate the noble Lord to whom one wishes to refer. I venture, at least, to make this appeal—that if the House will not accept this alteration, it will, at any rate, allow the benches to be numbered, so that we may speak of "the noble Lord sitting on bench No. so and so."
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I have never heard of any difficulty arising such as would warrant this alteration. It is a small matter, I quite admit; but this
  1752
  is one of the links with the past, and I do not see why we should sever those links unless there is some serious difficulty which necessitates our so doing. This is not a matter which need be discussed at any length; but while fully appreciating the necessity of improvements, I very much object to change simply for the sake of change, and this seems to me a departure from ancient traditions which are founded on very sound reasons. There can be no doubt that, if debate is heated or excited, some little restraint in the manner in which we speak of each other is not without advantage. I, therefore, sincerely hope that your Lordships will adhere to the old Order, which has come down to us with the sanction of the past. Of course, it may be said that this is only permissive; but no one can doubt that, if the Amendment is adopted, the new practice will become general, and I do not think it will conduce to our dignity and decorum.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL(Viscount CRANBROOK): From the short experience I have had in your Lordships' House, I am very much disposed to favour this alteration. In former days, when Peers used to comedown in their Orders, reference could be made to "the noble Lord in the blue ribbon" or "the noble Lord in the red ribbon," and so on, and no difficulty arose. We have now nothing of that sort, and great inconvenience often arises. After all, the old practice would very likely continue generally, but I think it would be well if this permission were given, so that on occasion the actual names might be mentioned.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: This proposal seems similar to the regulation existing in the House of Commons, that Members shall be addressed by the names of their constituencies instead of by their own names. Tour Lordships' debates are so orderly, and so generally free from all personality, that possibly that reason does not exist here. I have no very great feeling upon the matter, but I think there is some advantage in a debate, where speakers follow each other rapidly, in being able to point to a noble Lord by name instead of by some allocutory process.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I may just give one instance of the inconvenience to which the present practice gives rise

  1753
  On this side of the House we have no less than three noble Lords who have been Viceroys of Ireland, and the reference by any Member of this House to "the noble Lord the late Viceroy of Ireland" leads to considerable confusion. I think the proposed change will obviate a great deal of practical inconvenience. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) suggested—I do not know whether seriously—the numbering of the benches. Certainly an alteration of some kind is urgently required, because we have not all the force of wit of the noble Marquess, and some noble Lords, in endeavouring to properly indicate the noble Lord he wishes to refer to, may arrive at something like a nickname, which is, I am sure, a sort of designation quite unworthy of your Lordships' House. I cordially support the Amendment.
  The Amendment was agreed to.
  EARL CADOGAN: The next alteration is on page 16 in Standing Order 25. It is proposed to insert some new words, which will make the Order read as follows:—
  "No Lord is to speak twice to any Bill, at one time of reading it, or to any other proposition, except the Mover in reply, unless it be to explain himself, in some material point of his speech (no new matter being introduced), and that not without the leave of the House first obtained."
  The Amendment was agreed to.
  EARL CADOGAN: On page 21 there is an Amendment proposed in Order 30, to strike out from the provision with regard to Division Lists the words—
  "But in cases in which any [noble Lord] have higher or more ancient titles or dignities, the higher or more ancient title or dignity shall be added in brackets."
  The Amendment was agreed to.
  EARL CADOGAN: The next Amendment is on the subject of a quorum. I beg to move the following new Standing Order, which your Lordships will find on page 22, numbered 30A:—
  "If, on a Division upon any stage of a Bill, it shall appear that Thirty Lords are not present in the House, the Lord Speaker small declare the question not decided, but the debate thereon adjourned to the next sitting of the House; and if such Division take place when the House is in Committee, the Chairman shall delare the question not decided, whereupon the House shall resume, and shall be again in Committee at the next sitting of the House."
  1754
  The object of this new Standing Order is to provide for a quorum, to avoid what has been considered almost to approach a scandal at times—namely, the rejection by this House, when a wholly inadequate number of your Lordships have been present, of Bills which have passed the other House of Parliament. I may, perhaps, mention that I believe the Committee fixed the number 30 as having the same relation to the number of Peers in this House as the figure 40 in use in the other House of Parliament has to the number of Members of that House. I ought not, perhaps, to anticipate any discussion that may take place upon the Amendment of my noble Friend (Lord Colville of Culross) to reduce the figure from 30 to 20; but I may say that, as a matter of fact, very few Divisions have taken place in which under 30 have voted, and when these abnormally small Divisions have taken place, I find, upon reference, that the number present has been under 20. Therefore, putting the quorum at 20 would, in that respect at all events, be no improvement. I may mention also an objection which was raised by the noble Lord, whom I believe I may now mention by name—["No!"]—I must describe him then as sitting first on the Bench No. 2 below the Gangway (Lord Stratheden and Campbell). I believe that noble Lord suggested that it might be possible to defeat measures in this House by a sort of side wind—by Peers simply absenting themselves from the House instead of voting against particular measures. But I may point out that this paragraph merely defers the decision. The words are—
  "The Chairman shall declare the question not decided, whereupon the House shall resume, and shall be again in Committee at the next Sitting of the House."
  Consequently, if there be not a sufficient number of Peers present to insure a decision one day, the promoters of the Bill have it in their power to endeavour to bring up their friends on the following day. I cannot really think that the number of 30 Peers is an unobtainable quorum.
  LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I rise, my Lords, to move to reduce the proposed quorum from 30 to 20. Notwithstanding what has been said by my noble Friend who moved this Order, I

  1755
  think your Lordships will understand what difficulty would arise at the end of a protracted Session—say towards the end of August, as has frequently happened,—if the number 30 were to be retained in this Standing Order. I cannot but think that what might be valuable measures would not find their place on the Statute Book. I must remind your Lordships that in the Select Committee which sat upon these Orders the number of 30 was only carried by a majority of one.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I should like to point out to the noble Lord who spoke last that the matter upon which there was a Division was not that which he points out to the House. The proposal in support of which there was a majority of one was an Amendment that no less than 20 Lords should have voted in the majority, which is, of course, a different thing to the proposal that 20 only should be present in the House. The object of providing for 30 Members was that complaint had been made that measures from the House of Commons were rejected in your Lordships' House upon occasions when there was a very limited number of Lords present. The reason for fixing 30 was because that represented the same proportion to the number of your Lordships' House as the Commons quorum of 40 represents to the number of Members of that House.
  LORD GRIMTHORPE: The objection to the proposal as it now stands seems to be this—that if there are 20 votes for a Motion it would be carried if 30 Members were present; but if 30 Members were present, although less than 20 might vote for the Motion, it could not be carried. That seems to be rather an absurd result. Therefore, I think that what was suggested in the Committee is the better plan—namely, that 20 Peers should be required to vote for the Resolution.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: If we decide that there shall be a majority of 20 in favour of the Motion it will have a much more restrictive result, because, suppose there are 37 Peers in the House and 18 voted one way and 19 the other, a proposition would not be carried, the number voting in favour being just short of 20, although there were 37 Peers present. I do not feel very strongly upon this point myself, but I am not
  1756
  in favour of any needless change in our constitution. I may just make this remark, that it is no use comparing the two Houses in considering this matter of a quorum, because there are a great number of your Lordships who do not take their seats at all, and the actual number of Members of this House who take part in its business is very much below the number of your Lordships' Roll.
  LORD BEABOURNE: I think, my Lords, we should be very careful in restricting ourselves at all. It is, of course, harder to get 30 Peers together than it is to get 20, and, therefore, I should be in favour of the latter figure as against the former; moreover, the larger the number necessary to the passing of a Bill, especially towards the close of a Session, the greater the encouragement to a small minority to divide against the measure, and the greater the probability that they might defeat it. I think it would be wiser that there should be no restriction at all.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: With regard to this question of a quorum, clearly it cannot be a matter of very great difficulty to obtain 30 Peers even at the end of the Session. The number of official Peers alone is 25, and of course they would all be prepared to give their full attention to the public service. I may say that I think it would be discreditable to this House if it were to be understood that there is any difficulty in collecting together 30 Peers to transact public business.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: I think the noble Lord opposite (Lord Rosebery) has over-estimated the number of official Peers. I cannot agree with the suggestion that there should be required a majority numbering 20 in favour of a Resolution, because, although there were 38 Peers in the House, it might be impossible to obtain the requisite majority, and it would be impossible to carry on the business, which would be a very bad result. Therefore, on the whole, I am inclined to agree with the proposal of the Select Committee.
  Question put, "That the word 20 be substituted for the word 30," and negatived.
  Question put, "That this paragraph be added to the Standing Orders of the House," and agreed to.
  EARL CADOGAN: The next Amendment is at page 24 in Order 34, which your Lordships will remember provided that Bills brought from the Commons should be dropped if not taken up within 12 sitting days. It is proposed to add to that Rule—
  "Except after 12 sitting days Notice given by a Lord of the Second Reading thereof, provided that such Notice shall not be given after the 1st day of August."
  It has sometimes happened that Members of the House of Commons who had charge of a Bill sent up here have omitted to obtain the assistance of noble Lords to pilot it through this House; and not being aware of this restriction of 12 sitting days, the Bill has lapsed, because no noble Lord has taken charge of it. It is proposed now that in such a case, after 12 sitting days' notice given by a Lord, the Bill shall be again taken up; but there is a proviso that such notice shall not be given after the 1st of August.
  LORD FITZ GERALD: I propose, my Lords, to reduce the number of days' notice from 12 to five, for this reason. Twelve sitting days means three weeks' notice, because we only sit here four days in the week. In the case of a Bill lapsing in consequence of not being moved, its revival upon 12 sitting days' notice would in many cases be insufficient to prevent the loss of the Bill. I propose to substitute five sitting days, because that would really give a notice of nearly nine clear days. It is not always through a slip on the part of the promoters that a Bill is not properly looked after in this House; it is often found very difficult to get a noble Lord to take charge of some complicated measure.
  After conversation it was agreed that the word "eight" should be substituted for the word "twelve" in the Amendment; and the Amendment, thus altered, was agreed to.
  EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, the next is at page 25. It is proposed to omit Standing Order 37 which reads—
  "Every Lord is to sit in his due place when the House is put into a Committee."
  The omission was agreed to.
  EARL CADOGAN: Now, my Lords, we come to page 27, where your Lordships will see eight new Standing Orders which deal with the appoint-
  1758
  ment of Standing Committees. On the former occasion my noble Friend behind me. (Earl Beauchamp) remonstrated with me for not having shown any cause why Standing Orders should be provided at all in this House, and I am bound to say I had intended giving him some reasons; but I thought that we should take each Standing Order in turn, and that I might, perhaps, explain the proposal when it came to its turn. One of the noble Lords opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) explained very fully and clearly the chief object of this Standing Order. It is, undoubtedly, one of the chief functions of this House to revise, and if necessary to amend, the various Bills which come up to us from the other House of Parliament; and although it is an undoubted fact that the Committees of the whole House in the House of Lords do, when they address themselves to the task, examine thoroughly every measure that is submitted to them, yet it is also true that there are a large number of Bills which, perhaps, are not of any general interest, but which are none the less important, which are allowed to pass through this House with a very slight examination and next to no discussion. That being the case, it was felt by the Committee that it would be well to provide Standing Committees to whom such Bills should be referred. I think I might point out to the House that the labours of these Standing Committees will not, after all, be very arduous, and that although each would consist of 50 Members, the quorum is fixed as low as 12. Therefore, I do not think that any noble Lord would be justified in pleading that his engagements on Private Bill Committees or any other legislative work which he may be called upon to perform would prevent his serving upon these Standing Committees. Certainly, if any objection is made to the appointment of these Standing Committees on account of the difficulty of finding noble Lords to act on Private Bill Committees, all I can say is that I think the public business should take precedence of the private business. I defer any other observation until I hear what objections can be made to these proposed Standing Orders. I think I shall be in order if I read the first paragraph, and the discussion can be taken upon that—

  1759
  "At the commencement of each Session of Parliament Standing Committees shall be appointed, to one or other of which, unless the House shall otherwise order, every Bill shall he committed, instead of to a Committee of the whole House; and, on the Report of the Standing Committee being received, the Bill shall not be re-committed unless the House so order."
  LORD FITZ GERALDrose to move an Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Might I interpose for one moment? As this is a question of procedure, it would be much better for the House to decide upon the principle of the Standing Order before we go to the discussion of subordinate questions.
  LORD FITZ GERALD: I am quite content.
  LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move the rejection of the whole of the Standing Orders for creating these Standing Committees. The excellent manner in which the business of this House has always been performed is notorious, and it is thoroughly recognized, and I venture to think that such a radical alteration as this is perfectly unnecessary. It will lead to a great waste and frittering away of a portion of the very best working power of the House of Lords. I shall have to trouble your Lordships with a few figures to support my views. The actual number of the Peers who have taken their seats up to this date is 443. But from this number you must deduct a list of those who, as a rule, are exempt from taking part in the Committee business of the House. They are the Members of the Royal Family, the Spiritual Peers, Cabinet Ministers, and certain of the Members of the Government, Law Lords, diplomatists, and some Colonial Governors who, although they have taken their seats in this Session of Parliament, are now absent from England. Upon examination I put that number to be about 60 Peers. If you subtract 60 Peers from the number who have taken their seats there remains 383, which we may call the working power of the House. Now, my Lords, assuming that the principle of Standing Committees be adopted to the full extent contemplated, there will be four Committees of 50 Peers, or 200, plus Peers to be selected by the Committee by the Committee of election, 40 more, making a total number of 240
  1760
  Peers absorbed in these Standing Committees. Now, my Lords, the private business of this House has hitherto been done by a limited number of Peers. During the last six years the average number in each Session has been 71. I may here say that before a Joint Committee of both Houses that sat last Session upon the subject of Private Bill legislation, of which I had the honour of being a Member, the highest possible character was given to the manner in which the House of Lords performed its duties in Private Bill legislation. There is a noble and learned Lord sitting not far from me now (Lord Grimthorpe) who paid the greatest compliment to the House of Lords' Private Bill Committees, and especially to the business qualities of the Chairman of the Committees. Mr. Pope, the Leader of the Parliamentary Bar, considered that the House of Lords' Committees discharged their duties with more efficiency than those of the House of Commons. Now, it may be taken for granted that these, what I may call, excellent men-of-business Peers to whom I have alluded will always be upon these Standing Committees, so that we shall have to look to the residuum of the House—which after deducting the 240 from the working power of 383 who have taken their seats will not be more than 143 Peers—to do the Private Bill business; and any Special Committee work, such as has been going on at the present time—the Sweating Committee and the Poor Law Committee—and in that residuum will be found Peers of bad health, of advanced age, having other occupations, nonresident in London, rarely taking much interest in the business of the House. We had a very important witness on the Joint Committee last year in Sir John Mowbray, who has for 16 years been Chairman of the Committee of Selection of the House of Commons. Sir John Mowbray gave evidence as to the great difficulty which now exists in the formation of Private Bill Committees in the House of Commons. He considers it arises from the great number of various Commissions and Committees which now exist, including the Grand Committees. Now, I have been told that these Standing Committees are not like Grand Committees. All I can say is, they are so much like each other that you will not be able to tell one from the

  1761
  other; they are both large Committees; those in the House of Commons consist of 86, and these Standing Committees will consist of 50. Sir John Mowbray instanced the refusal of Members to serve on Private Bill Committees, because they belonged to other Committees. I feel perfectly confident, my Lords, that the same difficulty and the same state of things will arise here if this Standing Order is carried out. I entirely agree with Sir John Mowbray upon that point; and, although this new Rule is said to apply only to public business, I am perfectly sure that it will have a good deal of influence upon the private business of the House also. I speak with considerable experience of the business of this House. I have been, I believe, for 35 years on the Committee of Selection; and for 20 years I was the Whip of one of the political Parties in this House, and that induces me to give what opposition I can to this Order. I will quote the authority of a noble Lord who is not here now (Lord Cork), but who, like myself, has taken great part for many years in the business of the House. He thoroughly concurs in the view that I have taken on this subject, and if he were here he would give me his best support. I also oppose this Order for another cause. I do not think it is quite the time to suggest such a course. The Joint Committee, to which I have referred, reported last Session, and upon their Report a Bill has been introduced into the House of Commons by Mr. Craig Sellar. The Bill was chiefly founded upon the recommendation of a Member of the present Government (Mr. Stanhope). I conclude, therefore, that the Government will support the measure in the other House, which is greatly attributable to one of its own Members. Surely, it would be far better that we should wait till we know what effect this new measure may have upon the views of Parliament, before we commit ourselves to some great alteration of our Standing Rules in this House. The Prime Minister has stated in the debate that this is not a Party question; and he further has told us that no pressure ought to be put on any Members of the Government on this question. I do hope that you will appreciate the old adage of "let well alone," and that you will give me assistance in my Motion, which is to reject any alteration such as is
  1762
  instanced in this new Standing Order. I beg to move the rejection of all that relates to these Standing Committees.
  LORD BRABOURNE: In seconding the Amendment I should like to make just one observation and to adduce one argument. The observation is this: these Standing Committees or Grand Committees in the House of Commons have been adopted from time to time for this reason—the pressure of business has been so great that it was necessary to establish them as a remedy for that difficulty. Now, your Lordships' complaint is precisely the contrary—that you do not get enough business here. Nobody complains of the way you perform the business, but you do not get sufficient. Therefore, to meet a disease of exactly an opposite character, you are asked to apply the same remedy. But, my Lords, my objection to these Standing Committees rests upon something wider and broader than anything that my noble Friend has advanced. I say that by the Constitution of this country every Peer in Parliament has at present a full right to consider the detail of every measure which is brought before your Lordships. This is distinctly a measure of disfranchisement. You are going to divide 200 Members—it may or may not be the best portion of your Lordships' House—into four fifties. One 50 will be able to discuss a Bill of a certain class or character, and the other 150 Lords who are considering other Bills will be to that extent disfranchised unless your Lordships make some special order that the Bill in question shall be submitted to the consideration of the whole House instead of being committed to the Grand Committee. I protest against this disfranchisement—I do not think the bulk of your Lordships' House have done anything to deserve it. I do not see that it is called for by any very great pressure of business which your Lordships' House is unable to perform according to its present method of transacting business.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, if I agreed with the premisses of the noble Lord opposite who opposes these Standing Orders, I should certainly agree with his conclusion also, but I confess that I am not under the impression that it is notorious that we do our work, which is one of the most important func-

  1763
  tions of the Second Chamber—the work of revising carefully the legislation which comes before it—in so efficient a manner as to leave nothing to be desired. On the contrary, I appeal to your Lordships whether it is not the case that a Bill that comes before this House, unless it be what one may call a Bill of primary importance, or one which excites great contention, passes through your Lordships' House without any consideration in Committee at all. Unless there happens to be some one or more of your Lordships who take an interest in the measure, and look into it and call the attention of this House to any inconsistencies or inconveniencies that may arise from oversight in the legislation, the measure may pass into law without any sort of revision whatever. Now, my Lords, the object of this Standing Order is to enable your Lordships' House to discharge more efficiently what I believe to be one of its most important functions. It does not, and it is not intended to, withdraw from the consideration of your Lordships, or from your Lordships' sanction as regards the details of the measure, any power whatsoever. If these Standing Orders are passed as framed, there will be an opportunity for every one of your Lordships who chooses to move any Amendment whatsoever on any detail of any Bill that is before this House. There is, as I apprehend my noble Friend (Lord Brabourne) is perfectly well aware, a stage of Report, upon which you are just as much at liberty to discuss the details of the Bill, and move Amendments to it as you are in Committee.
  LORD BRABOURNE: A Peer can only speak once on Report.
  LORD HERSCHELL: What I mean is, that after a measure has been thoroughly discussed in Committee and the Report of the Committee received upon it, noble Lords will be then in a position to deal with it when it comes before the House on the Report; but further than that, the House reserves to itself, in regard to any measure which, in the judgment of the House, ought to be further considered in detail, full power to commit it to a Committee of the whole House, although it has been to one of the Standing Committees; and, with that proviso, I cannot understand the suggestion that it would withdraw from Members of this House any powers that
  1764
  they now possess of looking at the details of the Bill. Then the noble Lord opposite (Lord Brabourne) says that it would withdraw from the House the power of looking into Bills—we do not look into them now. I advocate the appointment of these Standing Committees on the very ground that Bills are not looked into—they are not examined—no one takes any interest in them, and the consequence is that we have measures passed into law in such a condition that litigation is certain to result. My Lords, that will become increasingly the case, because the other House acts now, one may almost say, at high pressure. The larger measures are no doubt better looked into, but the minor measures, when they are passed by the House of Commons now, are generally passed without discussion. You can only get these small Bills passed if they are passed without discussion, and the consequence is that they come up to this House in a condition in which they ought not to pass into law—in a condition in which their promoters would not desire them to pass into law, if the matter were properly considered and put before them. This duty of revision, I venture to say, is not properly performed at the present time. Perhaps it ought to be, but when the noble Lord objects to an Amendment of the Standing Orders such; as is proposed on the ground that it is unnecessary, whatever other objection there may be to it, I am perfectly unable to understand that objection, because it was the strong conviction of that necessity which I am sure induced the members of the Special Committee to recommend this Standing Order to your Lordships' House. So much as to the necessity, except one word with regard to the Standing Committees of the House of Commons of which the noble Lord opposite spoke. I have had experience of those Standing Committees, and I do not hesitate to say that the legislation which passed through the examination of those Standing Committees was far better in its form than it ever would have been if it had merely gone through a Committee of the whole House. When a measure is scrutinised in this way by a Grand Committee, there is proper attention directed to its details, and it is evolved in a shape in which it would

  1765
  not evolve from a Committee of the whole House. Nothing has been more satisfactory in that respect than the working of those Committees. They have dealt with the measures before them always in a thoroughly businesslike and practical spirit, and an earnest desire to legislate in the best possible form, and no desire to occupy time merely by needless alteration. Now, with regard to the practical difficulties, I think they have been overrated by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Brabourne). In the first place this Standing Order does not bind the House to the appointment of four Standing Committees—four is the extreme limit. It is "not more than four." Therefore, if it were found impossible to obtain consistently with the ordinary duties of the House four Standing Committees, there is nothing to bind the House to appoint four. Nor is 50 Members the necessary minimum. 50 is the maximum—it is to be "not more than 50"; it does not say not less. Therefore, there will be, I think, no practical difficulty in accommodating the number of these Standing Committees to the wants of the House in ordinary respects. But, my Lords, there are two other observations I should like to make. One is that, besides the 380 noble Lords whom the noble Lord left after deducting the official Members for the business of the House, there are, I believe, between 30 and 40 other noble Lords who have not at the present time taken the oath, and who are entitled to do so. I trust that this House does not mean to proclaim to the public that those noble Lords are unwilling to give the necessary time and attention to perform what this House may deem to be a necessary duty. I have no doubt if it were found that their services were really required, some of those noble Lords would take the oath. The noble Lord must remember that on these Standing Committees there would be many of those who are exempt from Private Bill Committees who would undoubtedly serve. They may be exempt from Private Bill Committees, but it does not follow that their services would not be required, and would not be at once given, upon these Standing Committees. I apprehend, with regard to many of them, they certainly would be. Then there is another matter which also
  1766
  is worthy of attention, and that is that there is no provision in this Standing Order as to the time at which these Standing Committees shall sit, and it would be perfectly open to the House, if there proved to be difficulty in other respects, to determine that these Standing Committees should sit after any questions have been put on one of the days of public business during the ordinary time of the sitting of this House for public business. That would get rid of one of the serious difficulties to which the noble Lord has called attention. My Lords, I consider this matter of very great importance, and I firmly believe that the result of appointing these Committees would be that both the legislation initiated in your Lordships' House and the legislation which comes from the other House would pass into law in much better form than it does at present. The difficulties and the inconsistencies which are found at present after the passing of Acts would not be found; litigation would be avoided, and the legislation of the country would be rendered more effective. These are the reasons why I strongly support this Standing Order; and I can assure the noble Lord opposite (Lord Brabourne) that it is not from any desire to disfranchise any Members of this House, nor do I believe that they will find themselves in a position to perform one whit less of their duty to the public than they do at the present time.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My Lords, I desire to say a very few words upon this subject. There is one remark in which I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord opposite (Lord Herschell), that this is a subject of the greatest importance. The noble and learned Lord says that the business of this House, when Bills are in Committee, is not satisfactorily carried out. I believe that if there is one function of this House that is better performed than another it is when a Bill is in Committee of the House of Lords, when every Peer is in attendance, and those Peers who think that they know something of the measure under consideration give the benefit of their experience and their knowledge of the subject; and I think I am right in saying that there is no Bill that is discussed in Committee of the House of Lords but comes out of it in a better shape than when it went in. Now, the

  1767
  noble and learned Lord (Lord Herschell) says that he does not propose to deal with Bills of the first importance by Standing Committees. I understand him, therefore, to lay down that Bills of the first importance would be discussed as at present in a Committee of the House of Lords, and he reserves for those measures which he considers not of primary importance the reference to Standing Committees.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I did not attempt to draw any distinction as to importance. It was what I called the contentious measures of the Session, which were sure to provoke discussion, that these Committees would not consider.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: Then I understand the noble and learned Lord to say that he professes to set up Standing Committees for the purpose of dealing with measures that are not of a contentious character. Well, it strikes me that those measures can be equally well considered in a Committee of the House of Lords and are well considered now, but if there is a special measure which requires, according to the idea of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Herschell), special inquiry, your Lordships have power to refer that particular Bill to a Committee, upon which you elect those Peers who either take an interest in the measure or who may thoroughly understand the question. The noble and learned Lord says, supposing these Bills go to the Standing Committee, there is nothing to prevent any Member of the House from discussing them and moving Amendments upon the Report. I would ask the noble and learned Lord what chance he thinks a peer would have of amending a Bill that had passed through the ordeal of a Standing Committee. Would not the argument at once be put that the Bill had been thoroughly discussed and thrashed out in the Standing Committee upstairs, and therefore the time of the House should not be wasted upon it? The noble and learned Lord says that some Bills are not amended as they should be. But why is that? It is in the power of the House to discuss any and every Bill, and I venture to assert that the reason why Bills are unamended is that they do not require amendment. There are
  1768
  plenty of Peers in this House who take part in the business of the House, and who would bring under the consideration of your Lordships any Amendment to a Bill which they thought were necessary. I think that, with regard to the private legislation of this House, nothing is more perfect. I have always understood from members of the legal profession who practsie before both Houses of Parliament that the Private Bill Legislation of this House is carried out even better than in the House of Commons, and I was astonished to hear my noble Friend below (Earl Cadogan), in moving this Standing Order, say that the public business of this House must give way to private legislation.
  EARL CADOGAN: I said the reverse, that public business must come before the private business of the House.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My noble Friend talks of the Private Bill Legislation of this House as if it were a small matter. He says that it should be secondary to public business. Does not my noble Friend know that there are Bills that are promoted in this House, and which come up to this House for discussion, in which millions of money are involved, in which the interests of vast numbers of people are concerned; and, when my noble Friend below me (Earl Cadogan) says that it is perfectly easy for a noble Lord to sit upon the Standing Committees and also to attend to the private business of the House, I do not think he can have thoroughly looked into the matter. I had the honour of presiding over a Committee which dealt with the Manchester Ship Canal Bill. The undertaking involved, I think, something like eight millions of money, and we sat for 42 consecutive days. How would it be possible for me, being the Chairman of that Committee, to take any part whatever in any discussion that took place upon any measure referred to one of the Standing Committees? My Lords, I feel very strongly upon this matter. I think we had much better leave things as they are. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Herschell) says that contentious measures would not go to Standing Committees, and, therefore, I think I may assume that what would come before the Standing Committees would be matters of less importance than those greater measures which he

  1769
  himself proposes should be discussed in Committee of the whole House.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am not able to take quite the optimist view that is taken by the noble and learned Lord behind me, of the manner in which we deal with public business in Committee—public Bills, I mean, of the order to which the noble and learned Lord (Lord Herschell) referred. My impression is that they are very little dealt with in this House, that there is very little control exercised over them. It is not the business of the Government, whose Bills they mostly are, to criticize them, and nobody else thinks that it is their business to look after them. But I think that this matter is perhaps best argued by referring to what has actually taken place, and I examined for the purpose the Statutes that passed in the year 1887. I am only referring to the Acts which were put upon the Statute Book. There were 73 put upon the Statute Book during 1887. Of these seven are Money Bills and one a Mutiny Bill, and we must put them aside. Of the remaining 65 there were 2 that are what the noble Lord would call contentious measures—I mean they were the Irish Land Bill and the Crimes Bill. They, of course, received full discussion in Committee of this House, and that would never be changed. As to the remaining 63, I examined by reference to Hansard to ascertain how many of them were really discussed in this House. As a matter of fact, I find that 7 may be said to have been fairly discussed in this House. When I say fairly discussed, my interpretation and definition of the words fairly discussed is not exacting. I considered a Bill to be fairly discussed when there were two other Members speaking on it besides a Minister of the Crown. There were only 7 that came up to the limited requirement. There were 3 other Bills in respect of which one Member beside the Minister of the Crown spoke, and besides those 10 Bills there were 53 in regard to which there was no discussion in Committee whatever. Now, my Lords, it is impossible to say that adequate control and supervision have been exercised over these Bills. I do not think you can possibly take refuge in the happy view of my noble Friend that they were not examined because they did not require to
  1770
  be examined. If that is the case, surely revision of any Acts of Parliament at all would not be necessary. Now I turn to Private Bill business. Of course where there are all-important Private Bills there are many noble Lords who would take part in those, and the work of Standing Committees would be done by others of your Lordships. I shonld be sorry to have to confess that we cannot find in this House sufficient brains or sufficient assiduity to discharge both our public and private business, but if I am compelled to choose between the two, I must say, taking them all together, it seems to me a mere truism to assert that public Bills as a whole are more important than private Bills as a whole, and therefore I am unable to do otherwise than support a measure which has for its object to secure a more ample discussion of public Bills. There is only one other observation I wish to make, and that is to say that the question whether they shall or shall not subsequently be examined by a Committee of this House is a question of detail upon which we can decide afterwards. It is a question upon which there is a good deal to be said on both sides and upon which I confess I have a very strong opinion; but that is a matter which we can examine carefully afterwards. I only wish to refer to an observation made by noble Friend behind me—I may not yet name him, but who sits on the corner of the third Bench above the Gangway (Lord Beauchamp)—that these Committees on public Bills were a favourable opportunity for development of neophyte talent, that they were opportunities when bashful neophytes might come forward without a blush upon their countenances for fear that their utterances would be harshly judged. My Lords, it was a very touching argument, and I felt much moved by the consideration for this tender talent that we were said to be likely to crush; but in the course of the examination I made of the actual business of the House, I found that there was not one single man who took part in the discussions, that we did have who was not an old speaker or ordinary hack on one side or the other. I am afraid, therefore, that the neophyte argument must be abandoned.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, I think our object

  1771
  should be not so much to supersede Committees of the whole House as to strengthen and improve them. What yon ought to aim at should be rather development than substitution; in short, instead of taking away this scrutinizing process, you should elect another scrutinizing process. In that sense, the true Amendment ought to leave the Committees of the whole House undisturbed and intact, and to subject Bills further to the consideration of the Standing Committees which are contemplated. I desire to express my full concurrence in what has fallen from the noble Duke on the other side (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) and the noble Lords who have gone with him. I will add only one consideration in favour of not superseding Committees of the whole House. We must remember that we labour not so much under the pressure as under the scarcity of business. If you take away the Committees of the whole House, you are destroying so many opportunities of business in this Assembly, which we have not too often.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: As a Member of the Committee, I should like to say one word upon this very serious proposal. I am bound to confess that, in discussing this in the Committee room, I, for one, entertained a very serious doubt as to one particular part of this proposal. I admit, with my noble Friend behind me (Lord Colville of Culross), that there is a difficulty as to finding an adequate supply of Peers. I do not think my noble Friend's arguments have been wholly answered, if they have been touched, on that point, because when you come to consider the number of Peers who are necessarily incapacitated by age, by youth, by absence from the country on diplomatic appointments, on Colonial service, on military service, and other matters of the sort, and when you take the number which you necessarily would require for these Standing Committees, whether you adopt the maximum of 50, or whether you take a lower number, and then when you deduct from that such a list as that which hangs in the robing-room just outside where we are now discussing, it is perfectly clear that the available number for business will trench very largely upon the special class of ability to which you have hitherto looked for your Private Bill legislation, and the business
  1772
  of the House must accordingly suffer But I do not regard this as the most important objection. The objection which weighed with me most, and still weighs greatly with me, is that which the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) urged so strongly—the question of the Committees of the whole House. I think there would be great difficulty on the point; and to send Bills before the Standing Committees must very seriously shut them out from that amount of discussion which they formerly got in Committee of the whole House, and to examination which was extremely valuable. But, on the other hand, after saying all we can, I am bound to confess that the advantage seems to me, with a very large number of the Bills, to be so great, of subjecting them to the care and minute examination upstairs which they cannot receive in this House, that on the whole I am disposed to vote for the substitution, to a certain extent, of the Standing Committees for the Committee of the whole House; but I would point out to my noble Friend that this clause especially provides for a re-committal of the Bills after they have been before the Standing Committees, and I would urge very strongly on my noble Friend at the head of the Government that we should not allow that re-committal to become a mere formal matter. If we can secure by the phraseology of the Standing Order that as a matter of fact without difficulty—I will not say as the invariable rule, because that would almost do away with the use of the Standing Committees—but if we can provide that whenever it is desired without involving any large pressure on the part of individual Peers, these Bills shall be re-committed again to the House, then all I can say is that I think you will have gained one valuable advantage, and I do not think the disadvantage connected with it would be very large. But I do venture to urge most earnestly upon the House and my noble Friend who has charge of this particular Question, that the re-committal to the House should not be a mere formal matter which can be invoked on special and great occasions, but that it shall be in the power of the House to agree to it whenever it desires.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I am in favour of the policy of appoint-

  1773
  ing Standing Committees, but I think the number proposed to form the Committee is too large. If you take four Standing Committees each consisting of 50 Peers, you take away from other business 200 noble Lords, practically exhausting the working power of the House, and I fail to see how you could get on with the Private Bill business with the small number of Peers you would have left. I think that part of the argument of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Colville of Culross) is quite answerable, but there is one simple remedy for that, and that is to reduce the number of Members in these Committees. I would suggest that that number of 50 should be reduced to 40.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE: I think there is a great deal of force in what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Herschell) about the advantage of Standing Committees; at the same time I think that there will be disadvantage in withdrawing Bills from Committees of the whole House. It may occasionally happen, as the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) pointed out, that a noble Lord, like himself, of great experience, may be engaged upon one private Bill for a very long period; but that does not happen very often. I have served in Committees of this House now for thirty years, and, according to my experience, the average length of time taken by each Bill is four or five days. I do not myself see why, because a Peer is appointed at the commencement of the Session upon one of these Standing Committees, he should necessarily absent himself from private Bill work.
  EARL CADOGAN: I quite agree with the suggestion made by my noble Friend that for the purpose of the discussion of the principle the first few lines of the proposed new Orders should be put to the House. I understand that the noble Duke in the Chair will put the words—
  "At the commencement of each Session of Parliament Standing Committees shall he appointed."
  Then afterwards, if the decision of your Lordships is in the affirmative, the details can be discussed.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I hope your Lordships will not make the remedy too large for the evil. The only evil which I
  1774
  think has been made out is, that a certain number of Bills have escaped that vigorous criticism which they ought to have had. As regards the Session of 1887, which has been cited by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), I do not know that any safe deduction is to be drawn from that illustration. The circumstances of the present Parliament, in another place, have been so exceptional, the number of measures sent up have been, comparatively speaking, few, the attention of that House being so completely taken up by matters more or less bearing upon the question of Ireland, that I think a very limited amount of legislation conld possibly have passed through the House, except upon the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. Your Lordships know, of course, that Bills introduced by Her Majesty's Government, and supported by them, have all the advantages of Government drafting, and all the advantage of that supervision which they get from the various offices from which they emanate. Therefore, when you have, as in the Session of 1887, a large proportion of measures of that kind, as compared with the total measures of legislation, it is natural to suppose there will not be any very long or protracted discussions in Committee of this House. I am talking now of matters not of the first class. The noble Marquess also based his observations entirely on Hansard. Anybody who has followed Hansard knows perfectly well that our proceedings in Committee receive very scanty reports in that authority, and I do not think that because the names of one or two Peers only are reported as having taken part in the debates in the Committees, that it follows that the discussion was limited to them. Our Reports in Committee are very much condensed. What is really required, as far as I understand, is that there should be some Committee of Revision, and if that is so, I can quite understand that it would be advisable to appoint a Committee of Revision; but that is a very different thing from dividing the whole House (practically it comes to that)—the whole working power of the House—into Standing Committees. Then, again, I do not see what guarantee you can have, if your Standing Committees are framed at the beginning of the Session, that you would have upon that

  1775
  Standing Committee to which a Bill may be referred the special knowledge which you may require for dealing with that particular subject. It would be a very great mistake if because thero is some mischief to be remedied we make our remedy larger than the mischief really requires. If the object is the importation or establishment of some Committee of Revision let your Lordships confine yourselves to framing rules for some Committee for such revision, but do not let us take such a serious step as withdrawing from the cognisance of the House the Committee stage of the Bill; because it is all very well for noble Lords to say that when a Bill has once been refused to a Select Committee and comes back again to this House it can still be debated. It is almost impossible to obtain any reversal whatever of the decision of the Committee, or to obtain the attention of the House to any serious discussion. I hope nothing will be done to prevent all Bills passing through the Committee stage of this House, whatever Committees may be appointed to secure the revision of what has been done upstairs. What you want is a Committee of Revision, which it seems to me ought to be a much smaller Committee, a Committee of an entirely different kind to that which is shadowed out in these Resolutions.
  VISCOUNT BURY: I quite see that the question before the House is how so to divide the working power of the House that we shall be able to give due attention to private Bill business as well as public business. I should like to ask my noble Friend (Earl Cadogan) whether it is intended when a Peer is appointed upon one of these Standing Committees that he should be appointed at the beginning of the Session, and that the Standing Committees should continue to sit during the whole Session; or are certain groups of Bills to be referred to Standing Committees from time to time as they come up here from the other House? I think that this would be a much less convenient and less economical way of occupying our time than the present system of discussing Bills in Committee of the whole House.
  EARL CADOGAN: I am unable to answer the question of my noble Friend as to the exact number of sittings or the exact length of time the Committees
  1776
  would sit. I take it that the sittings of the Standing Committees would not be continuous in the sense that Private Bill Committees are. I may also observe that although the maximum number of members of each Committee is 50, the quorum is 12, so that it will not be like the Private Bill Committees, where every Member is supposed to sit.
  Moved to agree to the proposed Standing Order No. 41A, as far as the word "appointed" in line 3: objected to; and, on question that those words stand part of the question, the House divided:—Contents, 52; Not-contents, 34.
  Resolved accordingly.
  LORD FITZ GERALD: My Lords, the Amendment I have to move is one which would very considerably affect the working of this proposal, the principle of which has just now been agreed upon. Your Lordships will notice that in this Standing Order No. 41A, it is proposed that every Bill, no matter whatever its character, no matter whether it be, or be not, a Government Bill, shall be committed unless the House shall otherwise order. Now there seems to me to be great objection to sending all Bills to Standing Committees. There are many Bills which ought not to be committed. The Amendment I propose is to omit the words, "unless the House shall otherwise order," with a view to insert the words "if the House shall so provide," in place of saying that all Bills shall go unless the House otherwise order. I propose that after a Bill has been read a second time, so that its principle is admitted by the House, the question shall then be put that it be referred to one of the Standing Committees. It has been said that this new Standing Order will assimilate our practice to that of the House of Commons, but, my Lords, it goes far beyond that. The practice in the House of Commons as to Standing Committees confines the Bills referred to them to those which affect the Courts of Justice, legal proceedings, and trade and commerce, and in addition the House pronounces its judgment upon the committal in each particular case.
  EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I can not see why, if we follow the procedure of the House, of Commons in having Grand Committees, we should not also

  1777
  follow the procedure in that House with respect to them. As I understand, the Grand Committees of the House of Commons are appointed at the beginning of the Session, but the Bills that go before them are brought up in Committee of the whole House, besides coming before the House on Report. I hope that it will not be the exception, but the rule, that all Bills that go before Standing Committees shall afterwards stand the light of their discussion in Committee of the whole House, so that any particular Bill may be considered not merely by learned Lords, but by lay Lords as well. I therefore support the Amendment of my noble and learned Friend.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Personally, I should not be at all indisposed to Bills coming before the Committee of the whole House after they have been before the Standing Committees. I do not think any harm would result. My object is to secure a greater scrutiny of the Bills—it is not in any way to withdraw them from the scrutiny of the House. I believe in the case of nine-tenths of the Bills considered by Standing Committees of this House, the going into Committee of the whole House would be merely a matter of form. But, if that is done, I hope my noble and learned Friend will not press the first part of his Amendment. All Bills, as a general rule, would come before a Committtee of the whole House. I hope the proposed Standing Order will be altered so as to allow Bills that have been before the Standing Committee to come before the Committee of the whole House, but, at the same time, I think that objection would be met by leaving in the words "unless the House shall otherwise order," leaving the House to give directions in particular cases.
  EARL CADOGAN: I join with the noble and learned Lord opposite in hoping that the first part of my noble and learned Friend's Amendment will
  1778
  not be pressed. I understand the noble and learned Lord to say that there are certain Bills which it would not be advisable to refer to Standing Committees, and I think he instanced Government Bills. I am not able quite to agree with that. I think it will be found that there have been many mistakes made even in Government Bills, and that they are not at all so well framed that it would be inadvisable to refer them to Standing Committees. As to the desirability of providing for the commitment of all Bills that have been before Grand Committees, I think the objection could be met by the omission of the word "not" in the last line but one of this paragraph, making the provision read—
  "On the Report of the Standing Committee being received, the Bill shall be re-committed, unless the House so order."
  LORD FITZ GERALD: I am afraid I must press my Amendment. My desire is that the House should pronounce its judgment upon each Bill—I mean that there should be a distinct Resolution of the House before any one Bill is referred to one of the Standing Committees. As the Order is now proposed all Bills will go, unless the House otherwise order. The point of my Amendment is that no Bill shall go unless the House shall affirmatively order. I can instance many cases in which it would be exceedingly inconvenient to commit Bills to Standing Committees without any Order of the House. I want the House to exercise its independent judgment in every case upon the question: Shall this Bill be committed to one of the Standing Committees? In the majority of cases the House would probably say "Yes," but there are other cases in which it would be considered unwise to make such committal.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My noble Friend has said that in the majority of cases the House would probably make

  1779
  the committal. If so, it seems to me that that shows that that ought to be the rule, and the other the exception.
  On the question that the words "unless the House shall otherwise order" stand part of the question, the House divided:—Contents 36; Not Contents 36.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: According to custom the decision will be that the Not Contents have it.
  The words were, therefore, struck out.
  LORD FITZ GERALD: Now, I propose to insert, at line 6, the words "if the House shall so order."
  LORD HERSCHELL: I am not sure that I ought to give my noble and learned Friend any assistance, but if it is put in that way without omitting the words "instead of to a Committee of the whole House," it will effect the reversal of the decision that has just been given, and will not assist my noble Friend's object.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I venture to suggest that instead of adding the words "if the House shall so order," it should read "as the House shall order." That will indicate that a Motion must be made in each particular case.
  LORD FITZ GERALD: I will accept that Amendment.
  Question, to insert the words "as the House shall order," agreed to.
  Question, to omit the word "not" in line 7, agreed to.
  Question, "that the words 'shall otherwise order' be inserted in lieu of the words 'so order'," agreed to.
  EARL CADOGAN: The next paragraph of this Order is—
  "The Standing Committees shall not exceed four in number, and shall be appointed for such classes of Bills as the House may determine."
  EARL STANHOPE: To meet the difficulty which would undoubtedly be
  1780
  found to arise if 200 Members of this House were serving on these Committees, besides those on the Private Bill and Select Committees; I move as an Amendment to substitute the word "three" for the word "four."
  EARL CADOGAN: I venture to suggest that if in the opinion of the House the numbers required for these Committees are too large, it would be better to limit the number of Members of each Committee than to reduce the number of Committees. The subjects into which the Bills should be divided are so various that it is desirable to have four separate Committees, although the number of Peers serving might be reduced.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: Why should we say four or three? I suggest that we strike out the words "not exceed four in number, and." which will leave the number of the Standing Committees to be determined by the House.
  EARL STANHOPE: Why does my noble Friend use the phrase "classes of Bills" in this paragraph?
  EARL CADOGAN: I do not attach any importance to the word "classes," but in the House of Commons the Grand Committees are divided into two classes.
  The Amendment was withdrawn.
  Question: "That these paragraphs—
  'At the commencement of each Session of Parliament Standing Committees shall be appointed, to one or other of which every Bill shall be committed, instead of to a Committee of the whole House, as the House shall order; and, on the Report of the Standing Committee being received, the Bill shall be re-committed, unless the House shall otherwise order,'
  'The Standing Committees shall not exceed four in number, and shall be appointed for such classes of Bills as the House may determine,'
  be added to the Standing Orders," agreed to.
  EARL CADOGAN: The next Standing Order that I have to propose is:—
  "At the commencement of each Session, a Committee of Selection, consisting of the Chairman of Committees and eight other Lords to be named by the House, shall be

  1781
  appointed, whose duty it shall be to nominate the Lords to serve on the Standing Committees."
  Question, "That this paragraph be added to the Standing Orders," agreed to.
  EARL CADOGAN: The next Order is:—
  "Each of the Standing Committees shall consist of not more than 50 nor less than 20 Lords, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, who shall have power to discharge Lords with their assent from time to time, and to appoint others in substitution for those discharged. The Committee of Selection shall have power to add not more than 10 Lords to a Standing Committee, in respect of any Bill committed to a Standing Committee, to serve on the ommittee during the consideration of such
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I would like to raise the question of the numbers of which these Standing Committees should consist. I proposed in the Committee last September that the number should be forty instead of fifty. I am bound to say that I did not obtain much support, but my opinion is unchanged, and my contention is that the work will be better done by a smaller Committee. Though it may seem a paradox, I believe that the smaller number will produce the larger attendance, for, if the number is large, there will be temptation to some Peers to think that their attendance can be dispensed with, whereas, if the Committee is a small one, each Member feels bound to take part in the work. I move to-night the word "forty" in place of the word "fifty."
  LORD HERSCHELL: I may say that I opposed the proposal of my noble Friend when it was made before the Select Committee, but after the discussion we have had to-night, I see no objection to reducing the membership.
  EARL CADOGAN: I also voted against the proposal of the noble Earl, but I must confess that I am swayed by the arguments that we have heard, and I am quite prepared to accept the reduction suggested.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: There is one question I should like to ask—Where would these Committees sit? This Chamber is used in the daytime by the noble and learned Lords, and I know of no Committee room in which anything like 50 Members could sit in anything like comfort. Considerable structural alterations would have to be undertaken to make some place for these Committees to sit in.
  The Amendment of the Earl of Derby was agreed to.
  Question, "That the paragraph, as amended, be added to the Standing Orders," agreed to.
  EARL CADOGAN: The next Order which I have to move is numbered 41D.:
  "The Quorum of a Standing Committee shall be Twelve."
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: Does it not rather suggest itself that, having reduced the number of the Committee, we should reduce the quorum?
  EARL CADOGAN:In fixing 12 we really considered what was an adequate attendance of Members, rather than the proportion which the figure bore to the total Membership.
  Question, "That this paragraph be added to the Standing Orders," agreed to.
  The following additions to the Standing Orders were separately put, and agreed to:—
  "It shall be competent for any Standing Committee to appoint a Sub-Committee for the fuller consideration of any Bill committed to them."
  "The Committee of Selection shall nominate not more than 12, nor less than 8, Lords to serve as Chairmen, who shall appoint from among themselves the Chairman of each Standing Committee, and may change the Chairman appointed from time to time. No such appointment shall be made at a meeting of less than three."
  "The procedure of a Standing Committee shall be the same as in a Select Committee, unless the House shall otherwise order."
  "A Bill which passed through Committee of the whole House, may, upon motion made, be re-committed to one of the Standing Committees."
  EARL CADOGAN: Next I have to move an amendment in Standing Order XLII., which deals with Select Committees. We propose to omit the words—
  "They [Judges or Counsel attending] are not to sit there or be covered, unless it be out of favour for infirmity; some Judge sometimes hath a stool set behind, but never covers; and the rest never sit on cover,'
  And to substitute the words—
  "And no man, except the Lords, shall be covered in the room in which the Select Committee is sitting."
  Alteration agreed to.
  LORD FITZ GERALD: I have an Amendment to move in Standing Order LXII., which now reads as follows—
  "The nobility of this kingdom, and Lords of the Upper House of Parliament, whether they be plaintiffs or defendants, are of ancient right to answer or be examined in all Courts upon protestation of honour only, and not upon the common oath."
  I propose to omit the words "or be examined." My Lords, I have traced the history of this Standing Order. I find that in the year 1612 a noble Lord had been ordered by the Court of Star Chamber to answer upon oath, and a Committee sat to consider the matter. In their Report, which was brought up by the Earl Marshal, the Committee stated that they had examined the precedents, and after consideration they agreed that the nobility of the Kingdom and Members of this House had an ancient right to answer as defenders upon protestation of honour only. The Standing Order professed to be made on this Report, but went beyond it. This practice of the old Court of Chancery was to receive the Answer of a Peer on protestation of honour; but the evidence given orally, or in reply to interrogatories, was always given upon oath. Now, however, the practice in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice is that there is no sworn Answer and instead of an Answer the defendant has to put in a Statement of Defence and, no matter whom the defendant may
  1784
  be, this statement is not made upon oath. The privilege was in the old days undoubtedly confined to Answers in Chancery, and if a Peer came as a witness on his own behalf, or as a witness inter partes, or in a criminal case, he was examined on oath.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think, my Lords, that we should be justified in making a change in that which is traditional and customary law, dating, as the noble and learned Lord has shown, from very early times, without taking the precaution of examining, by means of a Committee, how far the privilege is inconsistent with the present state of the law. I do not think it would be for the convenience of the House, at this time of the evening, and considering how few Peers are present, to discuss a matter of so great importance.
  LORD FITZ GERALD: I should be desirous in all respects to consult the convenience of the House; but to pass this Standing Order, in its present form, seems to me to be asserting a privilege which does not exist, and is contrary to law. If it is more convenient to the House that this matter should be discussed on the Report, I will withdraw the Amendment; but I confidently appeal to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack that I have not misstated the law.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I strongly object to any Amendment of these archaic and historical Orders, unless the whole matter is very fully gone into. It would be better not to touch them at all rather than give them fresh sanction without the most careful study.
  EARL CADOGAN: I may remind the noble and learned Lord (Lord Fitz Gerald) that we are now in Committee "to consider the Report of the Select. Committee on the Standing Orders relating to the conduct of Public Business," and we should confine ourselves to the Report of the Committee. I may mention that the Committee during its

  1785
  deliberations distinctly confined itself to those Orders which related to public business.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  EARL CADOGAN: Then, my Lords, on page 43 I propose the omission of the words providing that the Order concerning the precedency of the Earl of Banbury shall be read at the beginning of every Session; and also consequential words on page 45.
  The Amendments were agreed to.
  EARL CADOGAN: On page 50, your Lordships will see that we strike out Standing Order No. LXXXVIII., which relates to Messages between this House and the House of Commons; and we propose to make the Order read thus—
  "One of the Clerks of either House may be the hearer of messages from the one to the other;
  Messages so sent may be received at the Bar by one of the Clerks of the House to which they are sent, at any time whilst it is sitting or in Committee, without interrupting the business then proceeding."
  The alteration was agreed to.
  EARL CADOGAN: Then, as to Conferences with the other House, we propose to amend the Standing Order so as to allow of the meetings taking place in the Painted Chamber,
  "Or other room appointed in lieu thereof;"
  and to expunge the words directing the Commons to be uncovered.
  Amendment agreed to
  House resumed.
  Report of the Amendments to the Standing Orders to be received on Friday next; the amended Standing Orders to be printed.

ARCHDEACONRY OF CORNWALL BILL.(No. 12.)
Order of the Day for the Second Beading read, and discharged.
House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.