§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD DENMANMy Lords, I believe it is competent to Members of this House to bring questions of privilege before your Lordships at any time. I wish to complain of a misreport of a speech of mine on this very intricate subject of the Local Government Acts of England and Scotland Repeal Bill. I stated that the Prime Minister had given his opinion that the majority of the House was in favour of this measure, and I stated at the same time that I thought his Lordship was misinformed. It makes a very great difference those words being left out, and I conceive it is the duty of the reporter of this House to send the speeches early enough to those who have uttered them to enable speeches to be corrected. Another object of this interruption, if I may call it so, is this: I wish to know if the Clerk of the House has any right to refuse notice of any question that a Peer chooses to place before him? In my opinion, it is the duty of the Clerk to put a notice, if requested, upon the Paper, and if that notice be informal, the House itself can correct the Mover of it. I mention this particularly in relation to the Duration of Speeches in Parliament Bill. That Bill was sent to the printer, with a request that a proof might be sent to me. It was altered very materially, but no proof 722 was sent to me, and, to my surprise found the Bill in the Paper without my authorisation. Certainly the noble Marquess at the head of the Government postponed it for 10 months, which is really worse than a final rejection. I believe the noble Marquess wishes to do that which is fair, and I trust when I make the Motion to-morrow that that Order may be rescinded that the House in general will see the justice of my claim, and will allow the Bill to reappear in the Paper.
§ Order discharged.