The Sun.
London, England, 1848-09-06 00:00:00

' THE PUBLIC BUSINESS OF THE
HOUSE OF CONINIONS.
The Select Committee, appointed to consider the
best means of promoting the dispatch of public
business in the House of Commons, and to whom the
Parliamentary Proceedings Adjournment Bill was
referred, have agreed to the following report :
Your Committee proceeded to consider the question
referred to them "of the best means of promoting the
dispatch of public business."
They instituted an inquiry, in the first instance, into
the amount of business, private and public, which the
House has this session been called upon to discharge;
and they caused comparisons to be made between the
present and some past years, in such particulars as the
records permit.
A summary of the Committees which have been sit-
ting this session, Public and Election Committees, and
Committees on Private and Railway Groups, is given in
the appendix, with the names of the Members who have
been serving on them, and the number of days of their
sittings. This will show:-
44 Public Committees, some of them of more than
usual importance, with an average number of 15 Mem-
bers serving on each Committee.
28 Election Committees, with five Members serving
on each Committee.
14 Groups on Railway Bills, with five Members serv-
ing on each group.
17 Groups on Private Bills, with five Members serving
on each group.
112 other Committees on Private Bills.
Of the Public Committees that on
Commerdial Distress, sat 39 days.
Sugar and Coffee Planting, sat ... 39 days.
Navy, Army, and Ordnance Expenditure, sat 40 days.
Miscellaneous Expenditure, sat ... ... 37 days.
The average number of petitions presented during the
five years ending 1837 was 7,436 ; during the five years
ending 1842 the average rose to 14,014, being an in-
crease of 6,578 over that of the preceding five years;
during the five years ending 1847 the average rose to
16,397, being an increase 0(2,383 over that of the pre-
ceding five years.
The number of petitions presented during the present
session is upwards of 18,450.
This great amount of Committee business, and the
heavy demand it makes on the time of Members, must be
borne in mind in considering the course of public business
in the House itself. The thin attendance in the House
from the hours of seven to ten o'clock, necessary in some
degree from the exhaustion of the morning labours, in-
terferes in an important manner with the progress of
debates.
The leaders of parties and the chief speakers com-
monly decline to address the House during those hours,
and the debates are consequently spread by adjourn-
ments over more nights than they would otherwise re-

quire.
The business of the House seems to be continually on
the increase. The characteristic of the present session
has been the number of important subjects under discus-
sion at the same time, and adjourned debates on all of
them. This intermingling of debates, adjourned one
over the head of the other, has led to confusion, deaden-
ing the interest in every subject, and prejudicing the
quality of the debates on all. Motions to adjourn the
House for the purpose of speaking on matters not rele-
vant to the prescribed business of the day are made more
often than formerly; and motions to adjourn the debate
have become of late years much more frequent. But it
must be observed, that under the regulation moved this
year by Mr. Hume, the orders of the day are now read
without debate, or opportunity permitted of addressing
the House; a rule which the Speaker, in his evidence,
says "has worked admirably."
To assist their inquiries, your Committee sought
counsel of the Speaker, and they had the advantage of hav-
ing the opinion of Mr. Speaker both as to the evils under
which the House labours, and as to the remedies which
it may be possible to apply. Mr. Speaker said :
"That the present state of public business, and the
slow progress of measures through the House, had been
with him the subject of serious consideration.
" That of late years the progress of public business
had been impeded partly by the greater number of
Members who now spoke in debate, and consequently by
the frequency of adjourned debates, and partly by the
virtual abuse and evasion of the rules of the House.
" The attention of the Committee should be specially
directed to motions to' adjourn the House,' and to ad-
journ the debate.'" These motions Mr. Speaker consi-
dered as the great interruptions to the course of business;
and he suggested that "all questions of adjournment of
the House, and adjournment of debate, should be decided
without debate. Under this rule a Member would no
longer have any inducement to move the adjournment
for the purpose of making a speech on some extraneous
matter (as is now so often the case), as the question
must be decided without debate. Great advantage would
result from this change ; it would, in truth, only carry
into effect the intentions of the House. The rules
of the House provide that on days called order
clays' certain orders shall be considered ; and on days
called notice days' notices of motions shall be consi-
dered. If Members can move the adjournment of the
House without any notice of any sort, and upon that
question may debate any other question, it is evident
that all the regulations adopted for the conduct cf the
business of the House may be rendered quite in-
effectual."
The Speaker made other suggestions to the Com-
mittee, one especially, to the effect that the House should
not insist on its privileges in certain classes of Bills
originating in the House of Lords, and of amendments
of Bills sent up to the Lords from the House of Com-
mons, by which the Speaker considers that the labours
of the session might be more equally distributed ; time
saved which is now necessarily lost, when, owing to in-
terference with privilege, the Lords' amendments are put
off, and a new Bill introduced ; and increased facilities
be afforded to the passing of measures through Parlia-
ment.
The Committee thought it would be of advantage to
learn the practice pursued in the conduct of business in
the Chamber of Deputies of France and in the House
of Representatives of the United States of America.
They were so fortunate as to obtain information on the
first head from M. Guisot, and on the second from Mr.
Curtis, of New York, who had been for four years a
member of Congress.
In answer to a question, whether the rules and orders
of the French Chamber were not originally nearly the
same as those of the House of Commons?
M. Guisot said:—" In the beginning of our Consti
tuent Assembly at the revolution, Mirabeau asked Eti-
enne Dumont to give him a sketch of the proceedings of
the English House of Commons, and Etienne Dumont
gave to Mirabeau such a sketch; it became the model of
the first rules of our National Assembly. So that in the
beginning of our revolution the proceedings of your
House of Commons became the source of ours. In 1814,
when the charter was granted by the King, the same
rules were adopted with some changes. I think it was
at that time that the cl6ture, as a means of closing the
debate, was introduced. Before it was introduced the
debates were protracted indefinitely, and not only were
the debates protracted, but at the end, when the majority
wished to put an end to the debate, and the minority
would not, the debate became very violent; and out of
the House, among the public, it became the source of
ridicule, and then a measure for demanding the closing
of the debate was introduced.
"The proceeding is thin—a Member or two Members
call La cl6ture.' The President puts it to the vote. If
any Member objects he can speak against the cloture.
One only can speak, and no reply is allowed; and then
the President puts the question--' Must the debate be
closed?'
"When there have been any very great party conflicts
in the Chamber, has this power of cl6ture been used in
a way that has beenoppressive to the minority ?—I think
not. Upon some special occasions the minority have
complained that the debate was closed, but generally,
when the question has been decided in the affirmative,
the minority have submitted without difficulty. I think
the majority never abused that power. The debates
lasted very long; even with the power of cl6ture we have
had a debate of more than a fortnight.
" When the cMture is demanded, if a Member rises to
speak against it, is he allowed to speak on the main
question?—No, he speaks only on the question, Is the
cloture proper and just?' If he speaks upon the main
question, the President tells him, Sir, you cannot
speak upon the main question; speak upon the question
of cloture.'
" With the existence of the power of cl6ture, is it your
opinion that all subjects have been amply and fairly de-
bated ?—Yes, it is quite my opinion. I never knew in
the Chamber of Deputies a debate which did not last
sufficiently long.
pt tun
bniki
business
huas
uwe
si
st hionu
yt suormceb
apower
couldof e] os
havein g
bd
oe
ob"uaDt eos,
the cloture in our Chamber was an indispensable power;
conductedytoll satisfactorily ?—I think not. I think ue
calling to mind what has passed of late years, I do not
recollect any serious and honest complaint against the
cl6ture.
"Have you any limit put to the length of speeches by
any order of the House?—None at all. There is no
limit to the length of speeches, either on the main ques-
tion or on amendments."
Mr. E. Curtis, of New York—" Can you state to the
Committee whether the rules and orders of the House of
Representatives in Congress were the same as those of
the English House of Commons?—The rules and orders
of the House of Representatives, at the establishment of
the Government in 1789, were nearly the same as those
of the House of Commons.
" Have the rules in process of time been varied, and
what are the main causes which have led to these
changes?—The rules have been considerably varied,
chiefly
from the necessity of facilitating the dispatch of
business.

" Were the debates protracted to an inconvenient
ye
new were protracted,the debate.
teathought, to an
be a necessity
,te. The diffi-
ol length?—They
hd
in; Ts
ohme
unreasonable length. There wasastelwt
culty was not being able-to close a debate."
. "
Mr. Curtis proceeds to state
that as early
as the year
1794 it had been settled that a question of
adjournment
was not debateable, and the practice has fr
continued and now exists, that a motion°ll that time
to adjourn shall
be decided without debate.
" Will you be so good as to describe in what way a
debate is brought to a close?—lt is by the operation of
what we call the previous question. The previous
question with us is not the same as that known in the
British Parliament. By Rule 50 of the House of Repre-
sentatives, the previous question shall be in this form,
• Shall the main question be now put? It appears, that
on the previous question being demanded, it must be
supported, or, as the phrase is, seconded, by a majority;
and, on this being ascertained, the Speaker announces
—' previous question is demanded by the House.'
If it should pass in the negative, the subject under de-
bate is resumed; if in the affirmative, the debate ceases;
1, the amendments having been considered, the main ,
q ion is put to the vote without debate.
The number of the House of Representatives is
229. They sit round the
_Speaker in a half circle, tko