The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-06 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, Feb 5.
(Continued from our Third Edition of last night.)
AFTER MIDNIGHT SITTINGS.

Mr. BROTHERTON then moved that in the present ses-
sion of Parliament no business shall be proceeded with after
midnight; and that at twelve o'clock at night precisely, not-
withstanding there may be business under discussion, Mr.
Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any question.
This proposition was so reasonable that he could have
scarcely anticipated any objections from either side of the
House. The last division, however, was not very encou-
raging. He was not proposing any new principle ; 150 years
ago the rule was that the Speaker should quit the chair at
twelve o'clock at noon.—(A laugh.) He appealed to their
experience of the manner in which the rule for bringing
their Wednesday sittings to a close at six o'clock had worked
in support of his motion.--(Hear, hear.) It might be ob-
jected, perhaps, that it would tend to lengthen the session,
but he thought, on the other baud, that the rule was rather
calculated to facilitate public business than to retard it. It
would be admitted by all that the present system was ex-
ceedingly injurious to the health of Hon. Members. There
never bad been a session in which there had been such
a mortality amongst Members as during last year,
and he attributed it to their being overworked, and sitting
so long after midnight. A great deal of time was now
wasted in discussing whether they should adjourn or not,
which might be saved if the hour was fixed as lie proposed ;
which would also enable Hon. Members to make their do-
mestic arrangements.— (Hear, and a laugh.) lie had been
_ .

•
accused of having relaxed in his (Cas for enforcing ad-
journments. He was astonished at the ignorance of those
Hon. Members who made this accusation, for they ought to
know that he could not interrupt a speech, and unless he
could catch the Speaker's eye it was impossible for him to
stop the business; and he never liked, moreover, to waste
the time of the House by moving repeated adjournments.
He held in his hand a statement showing the number of days
and hours during which the House had sat for many sessions,
and showing also the number of hours after midnight. From
this it appeared that in 1842 the House sat 117 days,
1,008 hours, and 125 hours after midnight; in 1813,
119 days, 986 hours, and 105 hours after midninght ; in
1841, 119 days, 906 hours, and 69 hours after midnight ;
in 1845, 119 days, 1,026 hours, and 96 hours after
midnight ; in 1846, 139 days, 1,054 hours, and 77
hours after midnight ; in 1847, 121 days, 916 hours,
and 71 hours after midnight; in 1848, 170 days, 1,407 hours,
and 136 hours after midnight; in 1849, 121 days, 958 hours,
and 76 hours after midnight; and in 1850, 129 days, 1.104
hours, and 108 hours after midnight. The only argument
which could be used against it, as he conceived, was that
Hon. Members would speak against time; but even! that
would be better than debating for two or three hours after
midnight about an adjournment. After all Hon. Members
came there to do business, and though there might have been
a few instances of Members speaking against time on Wed-
nesdays, the goad sense of the House always prevented them
from being continued.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. EIVART seconded the motion.

Sir G. GRET said the House had, by a very large ma-
jority, decided against the motion of the Hon. Member for
Montrose. It was no doubt miserable that there should. be
a habit of coutinuing debates for a long time after midnight,
but it could not be said that such was the ordinary practice,
at least at the early part of the sesaion. Generally speaking
the adjournment took place at the hour which the Hon.
Member proposed. To say that the rule adopted on
Wednesdays should be applied generally was to place the
business in the power of a minority. As to the
latter part of the session, unless they could very much
diminish the business the result of the proposed alteration
must be to lengthen the session. The House had always
been willing to make an effort at the end of the session with
a view to an earlier prorogation. He hoped, however, that
the effect of the motion might be to confirm the salutary
practice which had already begun of abridging useless
speeches.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY would not 'support the motion;
but was opposed to the introduction of fresh matter after
twelve o'clock.

Mr. LAWLESS complained that Irish measures were
always brought on after twelve o'clock, and thought that,
with respect to them, at all events, the proposition would be
advantageous.
Mr. ANSTEY said he was an unfortunate example of the
Wednesday rule, for he was shortly about to bring on a
motion which might have been disposed of long since under
mother system.
Mr. SPOONER had made up his mind to vote for the
motion of the Hon. Member for Salford. He believed the
country was very much dissatisfied at the public money
being voted away in that House after midnight, and that the
effect of the proposed motion had been very much exagge-
rated by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State.
He thought the effect of the motion would be to curtail
speeches considerably, and induce the leaders on both sides
to make their speeches at an earlier hour. If the new regu-
lation were adopted he was confident it would be found to
work well, and lead to a better adjustment of the general
business.

Mr. REYNOLDS regretted that the House did not resolve
to meet at twelve o'clock in the day.—(A laugh.) That
course would be a great improvement. If he recollected
aright the House in the time of the Commonwealth met at
eight o'clock in the morning.—(oh, oh.) Mercantile men
had found out that the best time for conducting business
was in the daytime, and he did not see why the House
should not adopt the same principle. The Irish Members
had a particular reason to complain of lato hours, as their
business was always postponed, to the great injury and de-
triment of the business of the country.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion ... ... 32

--- ---
Against it ... ••• ..,
Majority against the motion
THE ADDRESS.

... 108
.. . -76

The Marquis of KILDARE brought up the report on the
Address. _

Lord D. STUART not having had an opportunity of
making any observations to the House in the debate of the
previous evening, believed he was 4n order in offering a few
remarks on bringing up the report. To prevent misunder-
standing, he begged to say that he concurred in the
Address, although he must regret that there were many
short-comings and omissions in it. He agreed wi h
the Address that it was a source of satisfaction that this
country was at peace with all the rest of the world. H. e re-
gretted, however, to find that there was so little allusion to
the peculiar position of that country with regard to the east
of Europe. In the Speech of last year particular reference
was made to the war in Hungary ar,d the attempt, to inter-
fere with the independence of our ancient ally urkey, by
compelling or coercing it to give up the Hungarian refugees.
It would have been to the credit of the Noble Lord if he had
followed up his good offices with regard to those unfortunate
men; and it would have been satisfactory to the people of
that countty to learn that Turkey was no longer com-
pelled to act as the gaoler of Russia and retain those men
in prison. If England had exerted her interference strenu-
ously and honestly he had no doubt an end would
be put to that state of things, and Kossuth and the other
great men who had done so much for their country would
not be allowed to rot in the dungeons of Turkey to
gratify the infamous brutality of Russia and Austria.
He confessed himself by no means satisfied with the existing
state of things in the east of Europe. The influence of
Austria, against which the Noble Lord himself had pro-
tested, was everywhere paramount, and the last news was
that they had obtained an ascendancy in the free town of
liamburgh. But ha would lime that topic, cad address