Sitting of 24 November 1837

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. GROTE, from Cirencester, for Vote by Ballot; and from the Members of the Stock Exchange, that the plan of Mr. Hill, relative to the Post-office, may be carried into effect.—By Mr. C. LANGDALE, from Beverley, complaining that a combination had been formed to interfere with the parity of election, and praying the House to enquire into it.

CHURCH COMMISSION (SCOTLAND).
Mr. Pringle, seeing the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department in his place, would take this opportunity of asking what progress the Church Commission in Scotland had made, and whether it was probable that their reports would soon be laid on the table?
Lord John Russellsaid, that in answer to the question he might say, that the report with regard to Glasgow had been received and would be immediately laid on the table of the House. The report respecting Leith was also in a state of forwardness,

193
but he was unable to give any positive information respecting any other.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord John Russellshould now proceed to call the attention of the House to the report of the Committee with respect to the public business of the House. He would not enter into general matters with respect to the business, for he was of opinion that it was a subject which required much further consideration, and he should, therefore, propose the re-appointment of the Committee, but he intended now to point out such suggestions as had been thrown out by the former Committee, which might be of service. There was no Member of the House, he believed, who would not agree with him, that both in the transaction of public business and in the conversations which took place in the House, it was of importance that the affairs should be conducted with method and order, rather than that they should have desultory discussions on subjects of a nature different from those of which notice had been given, and which tended to confuse and disarrange the proceedings. It was felt much during the last session that the days for the transaction of the business on orders of the day were frequently occupied in the discussion of notices, and on the other hand, that orders were frequently taken on those days which should have been devoted to the consideration of notices; but it also frequently happened, that on both days the House did not meet or was counted out. The Committee, in their report, said that there were many days thus misemployed there were eighty-five sitting days in the session, out of which thirty-three had been Mondays and Fridays, which had been devoted to orders of the day, thirty-four were Tuesdays and Thursdays, which should have been employed on notices, and eighteen of Wednesdays. With respect to the thirty-three days on which Government measures and orders should have been brought forward, the House had once been counted out, and once had not been formed, and twelve days had been devoted to the consideration of notices, so that of the thirty-three days nineteen only had been employed in the transaction of the proper business. Of the thirty-four notice days six had been occupied by adjourned debates which, of course, depended upon the House itself, on three the regular business was
194
superseded by government Bills, and the House was counted out six times. Of the eighteen Wednesdays the House was counted out on five, and once was not formed, so that the regular proceedings appeared to have been delayed about in the proportion of one-third. He conceived that there were two ways in which this misappropriation of time might be remedied. It happened occasionally that on order days Members had notices to bring forward on subjects very often entirely different from those on which the House had determined to transact business, and thus sometimes a question of a far less important character to the House was introduced than that which was set down. But there was another evil which tended materially to aggravate the error in the custom, which had gained ground materially of late years; he alluded to the long notices which were given by hon. Members of motions to be brought forward. The ancient practice was, that any person desirous of making any motion might do so without notice; but in the course of time the present plan had been gradually brought into use for the convenience of the House, inconsequence of which it frequently occurred that Members had notices on the books as much as three or four months in advance together, and the book was filled from the beginning to the middle, and from the middle to the end. The necessary result of this system was, that Members, who, towards the end of the session, had motions of importance on questions which were considered of little interest at the beginning of the sittings of the House, were unable to introduce them in a proper form, and, being unable to bring them forward on notice days, they were compelled to introduce them on the order days. There were two instances last session in which this had occurred. One was the case in which the motion with regard to the affairs of Spain had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Launceston (Sir H. Hardinge) and the other was the case in which the motion on the subject, which had been alluded to by an hon. Gentleman opposite this evening (the church of Scotland), had been introduced by another hon. Member. It could not be doubted that both these subjects were matters very fit for discussion in the House. They were at the time considered of very great importance; but it was impossible for the hon. Members by whom they were introduced to

195
give notice of them, in consequence of the notice-book being filled up, and they were consequently brought forward on order days, when the House should have been occupied with other business. The Committee had made a proposition to the House on this subject which he intended to recommend, and with respect to Mondays and Fridays, on which the orders of the day were taken, he should propose that in future it should not be allowed to propose for the discussion of the House on either of those days any subject except the first order of the day, or any other order which should appear on the order-book as of the day. He did not think, however, that even this regulation would be of much use unless Members were themselves fully impressed with the great evil which resulted from the irregularity of their proceedings, and were determined to bring into effect the regulations suggested, and to make it their custom and constant practice to carry on the business of the House regularly; and he did hope that the House, and particularly those Members who had had the advantage of having sat during the last and former Sessions, and had therefore acquired experience in such matters, would think it most desirable for public business, for their own convenience, and, he might say, for the character of the House, that the measures brought forward should be regularly disposed of on the days on which they were fixed to come on. He should, therefore, in pursuance of the recommendation of the Committee, propose, first, that the orders of the day should take precedence of notices on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays; and next, that on the question being put from the Chair, that the order of the day should be read, no amendment should be proposed except that some other order of the day should be read; but this should not apply to Committees of Supply or Committees of Ways and Means. He should also suggest, thirdly, that no notice of motion should be given in which the notice day was fixed at a more distant period than fifteen days from the time sit which the notice was given. These suggestions, although not in the precise terms in which they were made by the Committee, were in effect the substance of their representations. The plans proposed were experiments to make the proceedings of the House more regular, without altering much its ancient rules and
196
practice, and he had striven to keep as much as possible within the old regulations, unless when he found it was inconsistent with the spirit of the rules for carrying on the business of the House. All he desired to propose at present was, that the experiment might be tried; its usefulness could be tested far better by the House than by any further observations of his. The noble Lord concluded by moving the first of the following resolutions:—
"That in the present Session of Parliament all Orders of the Day set down in the Order-book for Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, shall be disposed of before the House will proceed upon any motions of which notices shall be entered in the Order-book.
"That upon days appropriated to Orders, and a question being put from the Chair that any Order of the Day be read, no amendment shall be proposed, except that the other Orders of the Day, or that any Order set down for the same day, be now read; but that this regulation shall not apply to the case of a Committee of Supply, or of a Committee of Ways and Means.
"That no Notice shall hereafter be given beyond the period which shall include the four days next following on which Notices are entitled to precedence, due allowance being made for any intervening adjournment of the House, and the period being in that case so far extended as to include four Notice days falling during the sitting of the House.
"That with the exception of Notices already given, it shall not be permitted to any Member to fix any day for a Notice given by him beyond the term of fifteen days from the lime of giving such Notice."
Mr. Humehad observed much more confusion during the last two or three Sessions in conducting the business of the House than ever before, and he could not but think that this was in some measure produced by the want of attention to the business of the House of those whose duty it was considered to be; although undoubtedly the duly was not confined to them, but extended to all the other Members of the House, to be in attendance on the House, and by their presence to prevent the House from being counted out. It was always believed to be the duty of the Government to lend its aid in making a House; and formerly it was understood that they did so; and if this practice were continued, he had no hesitation in saying that the business of the House would be better conducted.
Mr. O'Briensaid, that his attention had been directed to the point of the prac-

197
tice which had existed of taking the orders out of their turn. He thought that this should not be done, or, at all events, that the Government should give notice of the measures which it was their intention to press forward.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the resolution which had been moved contemplated two objects, one of which was to restore the practice of the House to appropriate Wednesday and Friday to the consideration of Bills, and of the public business of the House conducted by her Majesty's Government. It did not appear to him an unreasonable proposition to preserve two days, Monday and Friday, to what was properly called public business, as the votes of supply were usually taken on those days, and if those days throughout the Session were appropriated to that purpose, it would not be more than was necessary. In naming Monday, Wednesday, and Friday as the days on which the orders should have precedence, it was meant that nothing but business of that description should be taken on those days, and he thought that there could be no question of the propriety of enforcing, by a new regulation, that which was already the practice of the House. Then there was a second point, as to no more than fifteen days' notice of motion being allowed. He had no objection, as a Member of the House, that this proposition should be adopted, although, as one of the Committee, he had felt some difficulty in recommending it, and he trusted that his prediction that it would be unsuccessful might prove to be without foundation on the plan being brought into operation; but it did appear to him that without some other corresponding regulations they would be only defeating the new proposition. The fifteen days would generally embrace four notice days; for instance, the notice being given on a Friday, the Member by whom it was given would have the option of selecting the Tuesdays and Fridays in the two following weeks. Then, supposing that there was a great appetite for legislation, and a strong desire among hon. Members to be distinguished as the introducers of new laws—and, indeed, it was in the anticipation of the appetite increasing that the new regulation was proposed—the inconvenience would still exist, for four days only were allowed in which the motion could be brought forward. Then, on Fri-
198
days the candidates for legislation would come to the House, and a great number of notices would be given on one day. It might be said that those, which were of the greatest importance should be taken first, when all could not be gone through; but to whom was the question of precedence to be referred? He would venture to say that each Gentleman would consider his own notices of the most importance, and no suggestion offered to him would convince him to the contrary. Then who was to determine the matter? It would be an extremely unenviable office to give to any person, and even the Speaker would feel it to be attended with much inconvenience. Suppose the time for giving notice to have arrived, and perhaps twenty Gentlemen would start up at once; the Speaker would have to exercise his office, and perhaps might select a Gentleman who might have the most frivolous motions to make, but who, nevertheless, with his pocket well filled with papers, might occupy the attention of the House for two or perhaps four days. Some corresponding regulation, therefore, must be established for taking the motions in turn, in the event of the rules proposed being adopted. Thus, also, with regard to adjourned debates. It was known by all Members how frequently debates lasted over more than one night, and the importance of the debate being pursued on the earliest opportunity was admitted by all; for if a long postponement took place, the arguments which had been used on the first night lost their force, and the energy of the debate was much weakened. The debate, then, would take precedence of any notices of motions, and the Members by whom they had been given would forfeit their right to proceed in the usual course, and on the next notice night he would find the House engaged by the motions of other Members. He might well say, then, that provisions had been made for breaking into the notice days, but that there was no regulation to remedy the evil. Whether or not, it would be expedient that Members should ballot for their priority in the list on their giving notices of motion he was not then prepared to say. He was sure, however, that all Members would be anxious to take advantage of any opportunity that might occur to bring forward their several motions in the course of the fortnight for which the notice would stand. If the

199
noble Lord would accompany his proposed resolutions with others embracing the objects he had adverted to, he would have a better chance of attaining his object.
Sir E. Sugdensuggested, that in case an hon. Member was prevented bringing forward a notice of motion in consequence of an adjourned debate, that the Member should have precedence on the next motion day.
Lord Stanleydid not think that it was the duty of her Majesty's Ministers to see that Members attended on those days when there was no Government business before the House. Undoubtedly it was their duty to take care that there was a sufficient attendance to enable them to proceed with the Government measures, but surely they could not enforce an attendance on motion days. It appeared from the report on the table, that the House was generally counted out on notice of motion days, and this was the necessary result of hon. Gentlemen bringing forward motions on matters about which no human being cared. He found that on one occasion the House was counted out when there were not less than twenty notices on the paper, and on another occasion not less than thirty-two. Now, supposing only eight Members attended in addition to the thirty-two who had given these notices, there would have been a House; but the fact was, that most of the notices were a mass of trash and rubbish to which no one thought it worth while to attend, except the Member who gave the notice. The Government could not have succeeded if they had attempted—and they certainly would not have done their duty had they done so—to enforce the attendance of Members to listen to such matters. He thought that the plan involved in the resolutions of his noble Friend was an imperfect remedy for a palpable and increasing evil, but still it was doing something, and he was anxious that the plan should be tried. At any rate the adoption of the resolutions would facilitate to a certain extent, the transaction of the business of the country, and thus, at least, some good would be done. He was glad to see that there appeared to be a general disposition in the House to adopt the resolutions, but they would not afford a remedy by an acknowledged act unless the feeling of the House went with them.
Mr. Hindleywished to know, whether
200
a motion could be brought forward as an amendment to an order of the day?
Lord John Russellobserved, that if this course were pursued it might prevent the progress of the most important Bills. For instance, it was essential that the Mutiny Act should be passed by a certain day and by bringing forward motions or amendments to the order of the day its progress might be impeded, or perhaps altogether slopped.
The first and second resolutions were agreed to. On the third resolution being put.
Mr. Wakleysuggested, that the consideration of it should be postponed. He thought that it was a great advantage that Members had an opportunity of bringing forward motions as amendments to the orders of the day. This was the old constitutional system, by which it was declared necessary that a remedy should be applied to abuses before supply was granted. He hoped that the resolutions would not be hurried through the House, but that the further consideration of them should be postponed until Tuesday or Thursday.
Mr. Hindleythought, that the hasty adoption of these resolutions would interfere with the rights of independent Members; he should, therefore, if no other hon. Gentleman did so, propose that the debate be adjourned until Thursday next.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that he would recommend an alteration in the resolution, to the effect, that no Member should give notice of a motion extending beyond four of the days usually appropriated to motions, or, at least, on which they had priority; namely, two Tuesdays and two Thursdays.
Mr. Humewas sorry that the noble Lord had not had his resolutions printed and circulated with the votes. By this means ample time would have been given for the consideration of the subject. He begged to move that the debate be adjourned to Tuesday next.
The House divided on the amendments. Ayes 66; Noes 354: Majority 288.

List of the AYES.

Alsager, Captain

Chichester, J. P. B.

Barrington, Visconut

Christopher, R. A.

Blake, W. J.

Clay, W.

Blakemore, R.

Darby, G.

Brotherton, J.

D'Eyncourt, r. h. C. T.

Brownrigg, S.

Dick, Q.

Buller, Sir J, Y.

D'Israeli, B.

201

Duke, Sir J.

Leader, J. T.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Logan, H.

Egerton, W. T.

Lushington, G.

Eliot, Lord

Mackenzie, T.

Forbes, W.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Maclean, D.

Gibson, T.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Gillon, W. D.

O'Brien, W. S.

Gladstone, W. F.

Pakington, J. S.

Gore, O. J. R.

Pechell, Captain

Gore, O. W.

Plumptre, J. P.

Halse, J.

Roche, W.

Harcourt, G. S.

Round, C. G.

Harvey, D. W.

Salwey, Colonel

Hawes, B.

Sandon, Viscount

Hayes, Sir E.

Scholefield, J.

Hindley, C.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Hope, G. W.

Stewart, J.

Hotham, Lord

Style, Sir C.

Hughes, W. B.

Tancred, H. W.

Ingestrie, Viscount

Verner, Colonel

Jackson, Serjeant

Vigors, N. A.

Johnston, General

Wallace, R.

Jones, T.

Warburton, H.

Kemble, H.

Knatchbull, r. h. Sir E.

TELLERS.

Knightley, Sir C.

Hume, J.

Law, hon. C. E.

Wakley, T.

List of the NOES.

Acheson, Viscount

Blunt, Sir C.

Acland, T. D.

Borthwick, P.

Adam, Sir C.

Bowes, J.

Adare, Viscount

Brabazon, Sir W.

Ainsworth, P.

Bradshaw, J.

Anson, hon. Colonel

Bridgeman, H.

Archbold, R.

Broadley, H.

Ashley, Lord

Broad wood, H.

Ashley, hon. H.

Bruce, Lord E.

Bailey, J.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Buller, E.

Baker, E.

Bulwer, E. L.

Ball, N.

Burdett, Sir F.

Baring, F. T.

Burr, H.

Baring, H. B.

Burroughes, H. N.

Baring, W. B.

Busfield, W.

Barnard, E. G.

Calcraft, J. H.

Barneby, J.

Callaghan, D.

Barron, H. W.

Campbell, W. F.

Barry, G. S.

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Bateman, J.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Bateson, Sir R.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Beamish, F. B.

Cayley, E. S.

Belfast, Earl of

Chalmers, P.

Bell, M.

Chandos, Marquess of

Bellew, R. M.

Chaplin, Colonel

Bentinck, Lord G.

Chapman, L.

Berkeley, hon. F.

Chute, W. L. W.

Bernal, R.

Clive, E. B.

Bethell, R.

Clive, Viscount

Bewes, T.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Blackburne, I.

Codrington, C. W.

Blackstone, W. S.

Codrington, Admiral

Blair, J.

Cole, Viscount

Blake, M. J.

Collins, W.

Blennerhasset, A.

Colquhoun, Sir J.

Blewitt, R. J.

Compton, H. C.

202

Conolly, E.

Grimsditch, T.

Courtenay, P.

Grimston, Viscount

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Craig, W. G.

Guest, J. J.

Creswell, C.

Hale, R. B.

Cripps, J.

Halford, H.

Crompton, S.

Hall, B.

Curry, W.

Hallyburton, Lord D.

Darner, hon. D.

Hardinge, r. h. Sir H.

Davies, Colonel

Harland, W. C.

Denison, W. J.

Hastie, A.

Dennistoun, J.

Hawkes, T.

De Horsey, S. H.

Hawkins, J. H.

Divett, E.

Hayter, W. G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Heathcoat, J.

Dowdeswell, W.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Duckworth, S.

Heneage, E.

Dugdale, W. S.

Heron, Sir R.

Duncan, Viscount

Herries, rt. hon. J.

Duncombe, T.

Hinde, J. H.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Dundas, F.

Hodges, T. L.

Dundas, hon. J. C.

Hodgson, R.

Dundas, hon. T.

Hogg, J. W.

Dundas, Captain D.

Holmes, W.

Easthope, J.

Hope, H. T.

Eastnor, Viscount

Horsman, E.

Eaton, R. J.

Houldsworth, T.

Ebrington, Viscount

Houstoun, G.

Egerton, Sir P.

Howard, F. J.

Eliot, hon. J. C.

Howard, P. H.

Ellice, Captain A.

Howard, hon. W.

Ellice, E.

Howick, Viscount

Ellis, J.

Hurst, R. H.

Estcourt, T. G.

Hurt, F.

Estcourt, T. H.

Hutton, R.

Etwall, R.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Euston, Earl

Irton, S.

Evans, Colonel de L.

Irving, J.

Evans, G.

James, W.

Evans, W.

James, Sir W. C.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Jenkins, R.

Fielden, W.

Jermyn, Earl

Fellowes, E.

Jervis, S.

Fenton, J.

Johnston, H.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Jones, J.

Ferguson, R.

Jones, W.

Fergusson, rt. hn. R. C.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Finch, F.

Knight, H. G.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Lambton, H.

Fitzsimon, N.

Langdale, hon. C.

Forester, hon. G.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Fort, J.

Lefevre, C. S.

Fox, G. L.

Lefroy, rt. hon. T.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Lemon, Sir C.

French, F.

Lennox, Lord G.

Freshfield, J. W.

Lennox, Lord A.

Gibson, J.

Leveson, Lord

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Lewis, W.

Goddard, A.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Gordon, hon. Captain

Lister, E. C.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Litton, E.

Granby, Marquis of

Loch, J.

Grattan, J.

Lockhart, A. M.

Grattan, H.

Lygon, hon. General

Grey, Sir G.

Mackenzie, W. F.

203

Macleod, R.

Richards, R.

Macnamara, Major

Rickford, W.

Mactaggart, J.

Roche, D.

Mahon, Viscount

Round, J.

Mahony, P.

Rundle, J.

Maidstone, Viscount

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Manners, Lord C.

Russell, Lord J.

Marshall, W.

St. Paul, H.

Marton, G.

Sanderson, R.

Master, T. W. C.

Sanford, E. A.

Maule, W. H.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Maunsell, T. P.

Scarlett, hon. R.

Meynell, Captain

Seymour, Lord

Miles, W.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Miles, P. W. S.

Sheppard, T.

Milnes, R. M.

Shirley, E. J.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Slaney, R. A.

Morgan, C. M. R.

Smith, R. V.

Morpeth, Viscount

Smyth, Sir G. H.

Morris, D.

Somerset, Lord G.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Spry, Sir S. T.

Muskett, G. A.

Standish, C.

Neeld, J.

Stanley, E.

Nicholl, J.

Stanley, E. J.

Norreys, Lord

Stanley, Lord

O'Brien, C.

Stanley, W. O.

O'Connell, D.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

O'Connell, M. J.

Steuart, R.

O'Conor, Don

Stewart, J.

Ord, W.

Stuart, H.

Owen, H. O.

Stuart, Lord J.

Packe, C. W.

Stuart, V.

Paget, Lord A.

Stormont, Viscount

Paget, F.

Strickland, Sir G.

Palmer, G.

Strutt, E.

Parker, J.

Sturt, H. C.

Parker, M.

Sugden, rt. hn. Sir E.

Parker, R. T.

Surrey, Earl of

Parker, T. A. W.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Parnell, rt. Hon. Sir H.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Parrott, J.

Thompson, Alderman

Patten, J. W.

Thornley, T.

Pease, J.

Tracy, H. H.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Trench, Sir F.

Peel, J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Pemberton, T.

Tufnell, H.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Turner, E.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Turner, W.

Perceval, Colonel

Vere, Sir C. B.

Philips, M.

Villiers, C. P.

Philips, G. R.

Villiers, Viscount

Planta, rt. hon. J.

Vivian, J. H.

Ponsonby, C. F. A. C.

Vivian, J. E.

Ponsonby, hon. J.

Vivian, hon. Sir. R.

Poulter, J. S.

Walker, R.

Powell, Colonel

Wall, C. B.

Power, J.

Welby, G. E.

Power, J.

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Price, Sir R.

Whalley, Sir S.

Pringle, A.

White, A.

Pryme, G.

White, L.

Pryse, P.

White, S.

Ramsbottom, J.

Whitmore, T. C.

Ramsay, Lord

Wilberforce, W.

Redington, T. N.

Wilbraham, G.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Rich, H.

Wilkins, W.

204

Williams, R.

Wood, T.

Williams, W.

Worsley, Lord

Williams, W. A.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Yates, J. A.

Winnington, T. E.

Young, J.

Winnington, H. J.

TELLERS.

Wood, Colonel

Rolfe, Sir R.

Wood, G. W.

Wood, C.

POSTPONEMENT OF ELECTION PETITIONS.
Lord John Russellhad already stated to the House his intention of that day proposing the Adjournment of Election Petitions till after the holidays. He made this proposal on grounds of public convenience, which of themselves were so obvious as to render it unnecessary for him to explain them at any length. The day on which the first election petition was fixed was the 12th of December, but that day approached very near to the Christmas recess, a period at which it would be very difficult indeed to get Members of the House to attend election ballots. There would not at that time be many questions of interest before the House, and hon. Gentlemen might very probably be not over anxious to get themselves placed on Election Committees, which would oblige them, by law, to remain here during the Christmas holidays. It appeared, therefore, that Parliament having assembled so short a time before the Christmas recess, it would not be expedient to take any election petitions till after the holidays. It was his intention when the House adjourned for that recess to move that it adjourn to the 1st February in the ensuing year; and he should have at once proposed that the first election petition should be adjourned till that day, which he believed to be a Thursday, had he not conceived, that in point of form it would not be proper to anticipate that the House would make an adjournment for so long a period without the sense of the House being taken on the subject. He, therefore, thought himself bound, in point of form, to fix the first election petition for an earlier day than the 1st of February, in order to meet the possible case that any unforeseen contingency should induce the House to make a shorter adjournment, say for only a fortnight. In either case, he considered that the election petitions should come on immediately after the re-assembling of the House. He did not, however, look upon the latter event as probable; and in case the House did adjourn till the 1st of February, he should

205
propose the adjournment of election petitions to the same date. At present, however, he felt himself bound to move that the first election petition, which he believed was the "the Roxburgh," be taken into consideration on the 16th of January next.
Sir Robert Peelhad no objection, in point of fairness, to the proposition of the noble Lord, but he thought he could suggest a course more in conformity with what had taken place on all former occasions. The noble Lord had proposed to fix a day for the consideration of the first election petition, when it was perfectly notorious that election petitions could not be taken on that day. He knew of no precedent for such a course being taken; he had never heard of an instance of the House naming two different days for the consideration of election petitions, when it was notorious that, on neither of those days could petitions be taken. The law required, that the Speaker should give notice to the parties respectively concerned in election petitions as to when the day for each petition was fixed, yet it was now proposed to adopt a course which, while it was understood only by the House, could only have the tendency of confusing the parties. According to the arrangement at present understood, it was the Speaker's duty to notify to the parties concerned in election petitions, that the day fixed for taking petitions was the 12th of December. Now it was proposed to make the l6th of January the day for taking petitions, although the House was given clearly to understand that on that day petitions would not be taken, and yet it would be the Speaker's duty to give notice to all parties that on that day they would be heard. This would be not only an entire departure from the course which had hitherto uniformly prevailed, but it would be making the whole affair little better than a mere mockery. Would it not answer all the purposes of substantial justice if the noble Lord were to postpone naming the definitive day on which the first petition would be taken until the duration of the recess had been determined on? The noble Lord might take any day before the 12th of December for making this announcement, and such a course would at once obviate the manifest inconvenience and absurdity of giving to parties a public notification that their
206
petitions would be considered on a particular day, while it was necessary to give them a private notification that on the particular day mentioned their petitions would not be considered. He would beg to suggest, therefore, to the noble Lord, to postpone making any announcement on the subject till, say the 10th or 11th of December, by which time be could fully have made up his mind as to the course to be taken with reference to the duration of the holidays.
Lord Stanley, having put a question to the noble Lord in the course of the evening in connection with this subject, rose to say, that he had heard with some satisfaction, one portion of the announcement made by the noble Lord, namely, that it was his intention to proceed to the consideration of the election petitions immediately after the re-assembling of the House. Let the House recollect that they had a distinct promise on the part of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that unless he could bring forward some strong grounds for deviating from the usual course, it was his intention to move an adjournment till an early day in February, and that the petitions should be proceeded with on the first Tuesday or Thursday after the meeting of Parliament. He did not object, if the noble Lord thought fit to adopt that course, to the naming of the precise day being deferred, now that he had received that intimation from the noble Lord which assured him that he would secure the great object he had in view last night. But when the noble Lord told them that he could not anticipate the House would sanction so long an adjournment as to the month of February, he surely overlooked the precedents which occurred in 1812. Parliament met on the 24th of November in that year, and on the 1st of December this motion was made and carried—"Resolved, that this House will not enter on the trial of any election petitions previous to the Christmas recess." This was so far precisely the course of the noble Lord; but did the House feel any difficulty at that time in fixing the day? No such thing; for the four petitions were fixed, two for the 9th of February, and two for the 11th of February. That, he begged it to be understood, was the earliest time after the Christmas recess that could be fixed, Parliament not meeting till Febru-

207
ary. Here, then, was a precedent for the noble Lord as against the delicacy he felt in asking the House to adjourn for so long a period, as that very period to which he told them they should adjourn. The noble Lord said, that he had no reason to suppose Parliament would not accede to his motion of adjournment; neither had he; and, that being the case, he did not see any difficulty in naming the day. But the noble Lord said, he did not mean to name a day. Then let him not fix a nominal day; let him rather postpone any arrangement, say till the 6th of December, and name a day then. He was satisfied that the petitions should be proceeded with in the usual manner immediately after the holidays.
Lord John Russellsaid, his object, in the first place, was to take care that the parties had the due and requisite notice; and in the second place, he wished to avoid doing that which he thought he was not justified in doing, viz., fixing the period of the adjournment of the House. But as, in his opinion, there was no objection whatever to the course which the right hon. Baronet proposed, he would be ready on some future day, say the 6th of December, to move the day on which the trial of the petitions should actually be proceeded with. With regard to what had fallen from the noble Lord, he did not think that there were any of his observations of to-night that were contrary to what he had stated last night in answer to the noble Lord. He could not say whether extraordinary circumstances would not induce him to deviate from the usual plan; that was what he wished to communicate to the House, and the noble Lord was mistaken if he supposed that what he had said to-night was in any way inconsistent with what he had stated yesterday.
Mr. Williams Wynnsaid, as the general disposition appeared to be that they should not proceed with the trial of the election petitions till after Christmas, he would not urge on the House the necessity for taking them earlier; but at the same time he must enter his protest against the delay.
Sir R. Peelsaid, the debate he understood to be postponed then till the 6th of December. The object of his rising at present was to give notice that if, on the 7th of December, any doubt arose as to a day being fixed in February for the hear-
208
ing of the petitions, he should bring forward a distinct motion, naming a day in February for that purpose.
Subject postponed.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of DURHAM, from Members of the Stock Exchange, that the recommendations of Mr. Hill, relating to the Post-office, may be carried into effect.—By Lord KENYON, from White-church, Shropshire, against the union of the Bishopricks of Sodor and Man with the See of Carlisle.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved the first reading of a bill which had for its object the amendment of the law between debtor and creditor, the giving of more effectual remedies to creditors—and for abolishing imprisonment for debt, except under certain circumstances. He would take that opportunity of stating that great misapprehension had existed as to the several bills on this subject which had been introduced into that and the other House of Parliament. The general impression had been, that abolishing imprisonment for debt was their sole object; but if such had been the fact, those bills would not have found a supporter in him. Those bills, however, had not only the object of abolishing imprisonment for debt, but also of affording more effectual remedies to creditors; and it was with this idea that he had advocated the measure which he now presented to their Lordships' notice. He would mention the date of the several proceedings which had taken place on former bills, not with the intention of exciting discussion, but of inducing their Lordships to take a favourable view of the measure. In the month of August, 1835, the bill had been brought up to their Lordships' House from the Commons; but their Lordships then thought that they had not time to enter fully into the consideration of the subject, and for that reason postponed it. In the year 1836, the bill had been re-introduced to that House on the 30th of June; and on the 11th of July, when the second reading was moved, an amendment was carried, postponing it for three months; and it was understood that this course was taken, not because their Lordships wished to express any opinion upon the measure
186
itself, but simply because they had not time to give it due attention; for although the House sat beyond three weeks after the measure was brought up, yet it was soon afterwards prorogued, and by this postponement he did not think it possible to show that their Lordships had given to the bill any marks of disapprobation. In the last Session the bill reached that House so late as on the 4th of July, and the dissolution took place on the 17th. Their Lordships had never, therefore, passed any opinion upon the merits of the bill, and he (the Lord Chancellor) had adopted the present course of introducing the same bill as last year at an early period into their Lordships' House, because it had received the sanction of the late House of Commons, and because, although he could not agree in all the details, it was desirable to call their Lordships' early attention to it before they had other important business submitted to them, in order that it might be discussed and passed before the Christmas recess. He hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would allow him to fix the second reading for the first Tuesday in December.
Lord Abingerthought, that though his noble Friend said that he would not support a bill for the abolition of imprisonment for debt alone, yet that if he supported this bill he must do so on other grounds than he had stated. If the bill were a measure for moderating the system of arrest for debt on mesne process, he (Lord Abinger) would have supported it; but if he understood the provisions of the present bill rightly, they went to create, under the colour of giving compensation to creditors for the loss of their present power, so great a change in the adjustment and liability of property that he could not view it without considerable alarm. In this country, by the present law, a defendant had a right to contest a claim made against him at every step; he might go through all the courts till he reached that House, but it was proposed by the present measure to allow a judge in the first instance to declare whether a man had a defence or not, and from this decision there was no appeal; and he, for one, could not consent that so important an alteration should take place. He thought that the safest way was to proceed by steps. Some years ago, a proposition was made in the other House to limit the power of arrest by confining

187
it to sums under 20 l., the previous limit having been to sums under 10 l. A bill was accordingly passed, and the alteration had a most useful effect. When he had had the honour of serving as Attorney-General, and the bill for assimilating the practice and jurisdiction of the different courts was under consideration, he had proposed some other amendments, but they had not passed. He thought that the present bill went too far; and as it had not passed the House of Commons till after repeated deliberations during three Sessions, it ought to be well considered by their Lordships before they adopted the important principle involved in it; and without opposing it, therefore, he begged of his noble and learned Friend to give the House further time than he had proposed previously to the second reading for the consideration of the details.
Lord Brougham, before his noble and learned Friend acceded to the request which had just been made, could not help suggesting that great inconvenience would arise from complying with it, and the expediency of not delaying more than was absolutely necessary the consideration of the principle or the details of this important measure. If they put off the second reading, as requested, it would seem to him unavoidable that the measure could not pass before the recess, and it would be a source of great disappointment to the friends of the measure, both in that House and out of doors, who looked to its success with great anxiety. So far was he from thinking with the noble Lord opposite that it was impossible to pass it before the recess, that he considered there was ample time for giving it full consideration. The other House had thoroughly discussed the subject in all its details. It had not merely been fully discussed during three Sessions, but, if he were not mistaken, it had been referred to the consideration of a Select Committee of the other House, who had examined and scrutinised every detail, and it was only on the report of that Committee that the bill was adopted. It only remained, therefore, for that House to discharge its duty; and unless the House meant that between this and Christmas it did not mean to discharge its duty, he had no reason to despair of the bill passing before the recess. Upon the details of the Bill there might be some difference, but he must say, that abundant opportunity would be found for discussing
188
those details whatever day was fixed for the second reading, and it could not be said that ten days was too soon for preparing that discussion, especially as it was not a new subject. Having made these remarks, he would not further have troubled their Lordships had he not been rather anxious to remove a false impression or great misrepresentation which had been made through ignorance, and which had been spread in other places, as to the delay which had arisen on this bill. He was ready to bear witness to the fact, that their Lordships' House was not at all to blame in the present instance, whatever other sins it might have to answer for, either formerly or lately, for the postponement of this measure in 1835. It came up to this House at such a late period of the session that it was impossible for their Lordships to take it up that session. They were on the point of entering upon the important question of corporation reform—it was the end of the session, and they had arrived at the 5th of September; and he would put it to any commonly reflecting person, whether it was possible for the House at that period to proceed with a measure which, though he was friendly to its provisions, he must admit to be one effecting a larger and more sweeping change in the whole law of debtor and creditor than was ever made. Fatigued as they then were, to enter upon a fair consideration of the measure was out of the question, and their Lordships therefore, were not to blame for postponing it. But then it was said that it was not proceeded with in 1836, and the blame of that was fixed upon him (Lord Brougham) and it was from that blame that he wished to vindicate himself. He could not exactly say, however, that it was a blame for it had been most courteously stated by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Wellington), and as courteously elsewhere, that the postponement of the bill in the session of 1836 was owing to his (Lord Brougham's) indisposition and his necessary absence from the House. But such was not the case. Much as he lamented his illness, for its effects upon himself, he should have lamented it still more if it had been the cause of postponing so salutary a change in the law. In the session of 1835, when the bill was deferred because of the late period of the session, an arrangement was made upon his suggestion, to which the noble Duke opposite assented, and

189
to which his Majesty's Ministers also assented, and in order to avoid in the next session the errors which had been then committed, that at the earliest period of the next session, when their time was unoccupied, and the day was before them to work, such measures as were then delayed and could be brought forward in that House should be proceeded with immediately, and that sufficient time should be left for those measures which would come from the other House at a later period of the session. It was admitted on all hands that this was the proper course to be pursued, and it was arranged that this bill should be originated in the House of Lords at the opening of the next session. Then came the next session, and it was naturally expected that the bill would be introduced, but it was postponed till the 18th of July, when, if there were not reasons for laying it on one side, there was at least a plausible pretence. It was said that in consequence of his (Lord Brougham's) unfortunate absence—unfortunate in more than one respect—the measure was delayed. There was not a shadow of a foundation for such an assertion, as his noble Friend at the head of the Government well knew. Ten days before the beginning of the session of 1836 he communicated with that noble Lord, and, reminding him of the arrangement which had been come to, urged him strongly to proceed with the bill. In reply to this letter his noble Friend suggested if he were able to attend in his place he should take charge of the bill, as he had originated the measure in the other House of Parliament and in that. His answer to this communication gave his noble Friend the fairest notice that he could not attend, that the state of his health compelled him to give up all hopes of being present at the beginning of the session, that he would compound for being able to come at Easter, but that he must look out for some other person to take charge of the bill in pursuance of the compact entered into with the House at the end of the last session. His noble Friend's rejoinder was received before the meeting of Parliament, in which he courteously expressed regret at the state of his health, but added that he was taking steps to place the bill in other hands. This was the simple statement of the case, and he would appeal to their Lordships whether he could be blamed for the delay. Persons in absolute and dark ignorance of what
190
had passed in that House, but at the same time with the greatest courtesy, had thrown the blame of the postponement on his illness, but he hoped that he had satisfied the House that he was not to blame for the postponement in 1835, and that his absence was not the cause of the subsequent delay.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas understood to say, that he willingly admitted his anxiety to postpone the measure in 1835, and that an understanding certainly existed, that the Bill should be again brought forward at the beginning of the next Session. He thought, that till the month of July, sufficient time was not given for discussion, but he wished to postpone its consideration in such a manner that the country might fully understand that the House of Lords had not pronounced any opinion upon the merits of the Bill, that no objection had been taken to its principle. The measure sent to the House in the last Session, however, was not the same as had been postponed in 1836; it was of a totally different nature, and he thought it desirable that full opportunity should be given to their Lordships for discussion.
Lord Broughamhoped that it would not be supposed that he had the least design of complaining of anything which had fallen from the noble Duke, or of the course pursued by that House; he complained of a misrepresentation, or rather a mis-statement, which had been made elsewhere. A learned Friend of his, having been asked the reason of the delay, had stated that it arose from his indisposition. This was stated, in utter ignorance of all that had passed on the subject.
Lord Lyndhurst: One principal objection which the House entertained in 1835 was, that the House of Commons, after allowing the Bill to linger there during the greater part of the Session, had sent it up to their Lordships at the last moment, and a reasonable objection it was.
The Lord Chancellorhad not made his original statement with the view of throwing blame anywhere, but merely to draw their Lordships' attention to the fact, that the House had never expressed an opinion on the merits of this Bill. As to the noble and learned Lord's observations on the late period of the introduction of the Bill in 1836, as he (the Lord Chancellor) then took charge of it, he alone was responsible for it,

191
and if there were any blame he was ready to take it, and to state his reasons for the course he had pursued. To say that his noble and learned Friend was to blame, was absurd, for he was absent in the country. Not only was he not to blame for the delay, but he was not the knowing cause of it, though he was undoubtedly the innocent cause, inasmuch, as he (the Lord Chancellor) thought that so long as there was a chance of procuring the attendance of the noble and learned Lord he was taking the most beneficial course to delay bringing the Bill forward till he could obtain the assistance of his noble and learned Friend, and he thus delayed it to the utmost limit of time which he thought it could be prudently done, consistently with the view of passing it that Session. So valuable did he deem the assistance of his noble and learned Friend that he had caused this delay to obtain it. The noble Lord knew nothing of that, he imputed no blame to him, but undoubtedly the delay was with a view to obtaining his assistance. He had no objection to give the House the fullest time for the consideration of the principle and details of the Bill and was ready to name any other day more convenient than the one first proposed, to the noble and learned Lord (Abinger).
Lord Broughamdid not mean to say that the noble and learned Lord had blamed him, but he did blame the noble and learned Lord exceedingly, now that he had stated that the cause of the postponement of the Bill in 1836 was his absence. With all the kindness and courtesy which he might have intended, there was mixed up with his statement so great a mistake as to dates, such an utter forget-fulness as to facts, and such ignorance of every occurrence during the first four months of the year 1836 as completely surprised him. The noble and learned Lord had quite forgotten the particulars, or he had been misinformed or uninformed as to them. There was not the shadow of a foundation for the statement, and though the Attorney General might not have communicated with the head of the Government as to this Bill, yet he should have thought that the Keeper of the Privy Seal would have done so; and had any inquiry been made, it would have been known that he was not to be in his place till after Easter. No one knew this fact better than his noble Friend at the
192
head of the Government, and the Bill' therefore, must have been postponed for some other reason which his noble and learned Friend had, in the multiplicity of his business, forgotten, and not on account of his (Lord Brougham's) absence.
Viscount Melbournewished to know what reason there could be for delay—what was there in the Bill to require postponement? Was it not unnecessary procrastination? Was there not plenty of time to consider the general principle of the measure previously to the time proposed by his noble and learned Friend for the second reading? He had no particular interest in pressing this Bill, beyond his natural anxiety that so beneficial an object should be carried into effect; but he was extremely desirous for the regularity of the proceedings of that House. Not only was he (Lord Melbourne) anxious that no delay should take place in the measure itself, not only was he anxious that the House should be without the reproach of procrastination, but that the Government should not be subject to the reproach of allowing this measure to sleep throughout the Session. He, therefore, thought it would be better that the second reading of the Bill should stand for the day on which his noble and learned Friend had fixed it.
The Bill read a first time, and to be read a second time on the first Tuesday in December.