The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-20 00:00:00

E SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EY_BNINC4, ilia 20, !Sf

IMPERIAL PAR LI ANTE NT.

HOUSE OF LORDS--(YESTERDAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his scat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.

_
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Macclesfield Gas and the Horsham and Guildford
Direct Railway Bills were read a third time and passed.
LABOURERS' COTTAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the motion that the house go into committee on this
bill,
The Earl of AIRLIE took the opportunity of explaining
certain misunderstandings, and directed the attention of
their lordships to the state of agricultural labour in Scot-
land, and said when the bill was in committee he should
move an amendment to the effect that the cost of improve-
ments for cottages should not be made a permanent charge
on the estate.

After a short discussion in which the Marquis of Bath,
Lord Redesdale, and the Earl of Galloway took part,
The house went into committee, and the amendment
alluded to having been made, the bill was reported.
CRIMINAL LUNATICS ASYLUM BILL
(AMENDMENT).
This bill was read a third time and passed.
LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT
(AMENDMENT) BILL.
Earl DE GREY moved the second reading of this bill,
and said one of the clauses en.powered the Secretary at
War to take land for the defence of the realm. The bill
did not increase the power•given to the Secretary at War
under the Defence Act, but it enabled him to avail himself
of the machinery of the present measure.
The Duke of SOMERSET said the bill did not give any
new power to the War department ; it only gave improved
machinery. With respect to the Admiralty the alterations
he wished could be better discussed in committee.
Lord CHELMSFORD thought the bill conferred some
new powers on the Lords of Admiralty, and therefore it
ought to be most carefully considered
After a few words from Earl DE GREY, the bill was
read a second time.
COLEWORT BARRACKS (PORTSMOUTH) BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
ANNUITY TAX ABOLITION BILL.
The house went int* committee on this bill, which was
reported without amendment.
LEITH HARBOUR BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH ACT (AMEND-
MENT) BILL.
This bill was also read a second time.
CENSUS (ENGLAND) BILL.
Earl GRANVIL LE said, in moving the second reading
of this bill, he need not make any observations, as its ob-
jects were so well known.
The bill was read a second time.
CENSUS (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was also read a third time.
THE BUSINESS OF PARLIAMENT.
The Earl of DERBY rose, pursuant to notice, to call the
attention of the house to the mode of conducting the busi-
ness of the house. He said,—We have now arrived at the
third week of July, a period when it is generally hoped that
the session is drawing to a close. On former occasions the
review of the session has often been made the subject of an
exciting political controversy, and I am far from saying
that the present session is so far an exception to the general
rule as not to afford ample material for debate, (Hear,
hear.) But on the present occasion it is my desire not to
seek, but sedulously to avoid, such a discussion. I wish
solely to draw your lordships' attention to a state of things
which necessarily leads to dry detail, but which is yet a
matter of great importance not only to the country, as
affecting the character of the legislation of both houses,
but also to the interests of any and every Government
which happens to be charged with the responsibility of
office. I trust, therefore, we may approach the considera-
tion of the question without the slightest reference to party
feeling, and merely as a subject in which we all have a
great and common interest. We have now been sitting for
the space of 26 weeks, and at the expiration of that time I
find that 34 Acts of Parliament have received the Royal
assent, and tiat there are 13 other bills which, as they have
passed both houses, and only await the Royal assent, may
be supposed to be already added to the legislation of the
session. On examination, however, the great proportion
of these bills prove to be measures of the most absolute and
complete routine. There is hardly a single measure among
them that can claim the dignity of being of seconds-
rat* importance. This is not a circumstance which is new
or peculiar to the present session, for I find that during
this session nearly as many bills will have been passed
up to the expiration of July as in any of the last ten
or twelve years. The number is somewhat smaller,
but the difference is not material. • 'What I wish to bring
before your lordships is that almost by the necessity of the
case the same thing must be found in nearly every session
of Parliament. I wish to direct your attention to the man-
ner in which parliamentary business is conducted in the two
houses, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the mode
of proceeding may not be altered so as to avoid thedifficulty
I have pointed out. I begin by acknowledging that the
great proportion of bills, 9 out of 10, or even 19 out of every
20, require to be originated in the other House of Parlia-
ment. This does not arise merely because there are a null -
ber of bills which, owing to the privileges of the House of
Commons, we are precluded from originating in this house.
I will frankly confess that, as a general rule, the House of
Commons is better adapted for originating and discussing
measures in the first instance, and that your lordships are
better employed in revising and correcting the rough
work, if I may say so, of the other House of Parliament.
I do net mean to cast any discredit on your lordships' house
when I say that the proceedings here do not bear any com-
parison with those of the other house in regard to the minute
examination of measures, especially if they are of any length.
There is, comparatively speaking, so small a number of your
lordships who are disposed very carefully to consider the pro-
visions of measures which may be introduced, or who are in-
terested in calling attention to matters in detail, and there
is so great a readiness to allow measures to be sent from this
for consideration by the other house, that I suspect, unless
a bill happens to excite general attention, there is a risk of
its being sent down without receiving that attention and
consideration which would probably have been bestowed on
it had it been sent up to your lordships to be passed into a
law. But assuming that in the great proportion of cases
bills should be introduced first in the other House
of Parliament, we are led to consider what is the
course of proceeding which is taken in regard to bills in that
house, and what is the prospect that those which originate
there will come before your lordships in a reasonable time
in order to give you the opportunity of deliberately con-
sidering them. There is one point of difference between the
proceedings of the House of Commons and those of your
lordships' house. I need not say that by the courtesy of
this house any noble lord has the.privilege of placing a bill
on the table and obtaining for it a first reading, without the
necessity of raising any lengthy discussion. In the House
of Commons members have no such power. It is necessary
for them first to give notice on the preceding day that leave
will be asked to introduce a bill, and upon that leave being
asked considerable discussion may arise. Bills have there-
fore one more stage to go through in the House of Com-
mons than in your lordships' house, and in cases where
it is necessary to originate the bill by the re-
solution of a committee of the whole house there is added
another stage, making two more stages upon the introduc-
tion of certain measures than are necessary in your lord-
ships' house. But, then, what are the facilities which the
House of Commons affords, especially to the Government,
for the introduction of bills and the progress of public busi-
ness ? By the rules of the House of Commons two days
are set apart for motions by individual members, and a third
day, 'Wednesday, is set aside for bills without any prefer-
ence in favour of Government measures over those of pri-
vate members, the bills being taken in the order in which
they stand on the notice paper. At the commencement of
the session the Government, by giving notice of all the
measures they have prepared, and sometimes also, I
fear, of measures that they have not prepared, occupy
the ground, and have an opportunity of introducing
some bills. But, except for the first week of the
session, the Government have no precedence over pri-
vate members, and they aro often placed in circum-
stances of great difficulty with regard even to the introduc=
Lion of their measures. When bills are introduced the Go-
vernment have nominally two days in the week for their
consideration. We should, however, recollect the position
in which the Government stand at the beginning of each
session with regard to the two days in tie week allotted to
them. It is necessary, in consequence of the expiration of
the Mutiny Act, that a very early opportunity should be
taken of laying before Parliament the number of men and
the amount proposed to be demanded for the military and
naval service of the country. The first object, therefore, is
to go into Committee of Supply. The Mutiny Act cannot
be passed before the votes for men and money have been
taken, and it is thereforenecesaary before Easter that these
votes should be considered in supply. But, although the
Government are in possession of two days out of five for the
transaction of Government business in the House of Com-
mons, that statement, without further explanation, would
lead to an erroneous idea in regard to the time actually at
their disposal; because on every occasion of going into
committee of supply it is open to any hon member to move
any amendment, and a discussion may be taken upon any
subject whatever, on the ground that the consideration of
grievances ought to precede the granting of supply. It,
therefore, often happens that a whole evening, and some-
times more than a whole evening, is occupied by discussing
some question that has nothing to do with committee of
supply. 'With regard to other bills a satisfactory rule has
been made, that when the hou. e has onbe gone into com-
mittee on a bill, and has reported progress, it is not com-
petent for any hon. member, when the bill again comes be
fore the house, to move an amendment to the motion that
the Speaker leave the chair. But formerly that was not
the case, and this was one of the modes adopted by the House
of Commons for the purpose of curtailing the forms of the
house and saving time. I believe that this alteration was made
under the presidency of my noble friend (Viscount Evers •
ley), whore I do not now see in his place, who presided with
so much dignity and public utility over the deliberations of
that house—(cheers)—and that was one of the many valu-
able improvements he introduced into the parliamentary
practice of the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) It has

noi

eili I

been found necessary of late years, indeed, to carry these
restrictions to an extent that can hardly be justified.
Your
lordships all know that en the presentation of petitions in
this house the whole subject of those petitions may be en-
tered upon and discussed ; but it has been found necessary
to put so absolute a restriction upon this right in the House
of Commons that members are not allowed to stateanything
except the substance of the petition and the parties from
whom it proceeds. With regard to Committee of Supply, it
is not only nee. ssary that a motion should be made when-
ever the Speaker leaves the chair ; but upon every occasion
when the house goes into committee afterwards, although
no vote may have been taken on the previous occasion, a
new motion must be made and a new amendment may be
moved. And that may take place on every occasion when
the Government seek to go into Committee of Supply.
During these two days in the week, when devoted to the
business of supply, the Government may thus be indefi-
nitely embarrassed and the public business indefinitely
postponed by amendment after amendment. But that is
not all, for every 'Friday, which is one of the two days at the
disposal of the Government, a motion was made " that this
house at its rising adjourn to Monday." That motion
affords weekly an opportunity not of moving a specific
amendment, but of discussing every description of subject,
introduced without order or regularity or without the
possibility of any Minister speaking more than once in
answer to numerous interpellations. Recently Thursday
has been taken as a Government day instead of Friday,
and the discussions upon the motion for adjourn-
ment on Friday are not now taken out of the time allotted
to Government business. So far as the promotion of public
business is concerned, that is a very considerable improve-
ment. But in the early part of the session the Government
are limited to two days in the week, and for public business
of the character of legislation there is little or no time be-
fore Easter, from the necessity of obtaining Supply, and the
difficulty of entering upon the consideration of Supply. I
hope it will not be supposed that in alluding to the practice
of the House of Commons I conceive myself entitled, or
that your lordships are entitled, to pass an opinion upon the
mode in which the House of Commons transact their own
business, or that suchen opinion would carry any weight with
it. What I want to show is that this is a state of things which
the House of Commons have made many attempts to amend.
It is to be regarded not as an exceptional state of things,
but as one that does and may affect every session of Parlia-
ment. Ido not mean to say that there may not have been
some additional delay in the present session, owing to the
introduction, at an unusually early period, of a budget of
an ambitious and complicated character, simultaneously
with the introduction of a commercial treaty, which led to
much discussion and difference of opinion, and simultane-
ously also with the introduction of a Reform Bill, which
occupied a great deal of the time of the house. The House
of Commons, then, having one stage more for every bill than
) our lordships, and originating a great number of bills, the
Government having only two days for the conduct of the
Government business, those two days being greatly occupied
by motions in supply, and those motions being liable to in-
terruption and great delay from the introductionof other sub-
jects, the time for legislation at their disposal may be re-
garded as almost nil, and the result is that the number of
bills passed before the end of July is comparatively small.
From 1848 to 1860, but not including this year, the average
number of bills that received the Royal assent up to the
end of July for each year was 61, while the average num-
ber that received the Royal assent from the end of July up
to the end of August was 61. That is to say, the number of
bills passed in a month when there is a very small number
of either house in attendance is equal on an average of years
to the number that received the Royal assent in all the five
preceding months of the session. My lords, I have before
me a precise state of the business of the house as it was
this morning. Your lordships have gone through some mea-
sures this evening, and so far it will not be accurate; but
this morning there were five bills standing for a third read-
ing, eight for committee, two of which are referred to a select
committee, nine for a second reading, the day for which is
fixed, and 16 waiting for a second reading, for which no day
is fixed, including three bills which originated here, and ap-
pear likely also to terminate their existence in this house.
The total number of bills now on the table of your lordships'
house is 43; but even with regard to these 43 bills, 15 or
16 of which came up on Monday, and five or six to-day, there
are comparatively few which are of great importance. Now,
there is, as I said before, a large number of bills which
your lordships have not the power of originating. Se far,
however, as your power in that respect extends, you have
not neglected the public business in the course of the present
session, for I find that you have sent down to the House of
Commons 22 or 23 bills, many of which are very important,
including seven relating to the consolidation of the Criminal
Law, which received your assent at an early period of the
session, and to whose consideration much industry and
knowledge was applied. In addition to these, you passed a
bill for the regulation of the Divorce Court, the Indictable
Offences Bill, a bill for the Union of Benefices, another on
the subject of Church temporalities, and a great number of
other important measures. It must, however, be admitted,
when we come to take notice of the progress which these
measures have made in the House of Commons, that the 1
position which they occupy on its votes is not such as to
encourage us to originate bills in this house, for having
examined the votes of the House of Commons, I find that
not one of the bills which you have sent thither—the course
of three of them, I may observe, I have been unable to
trace—has yet passed through committee. (Hear.) Ten of
them are awaiting that stage, having passed a second read-
ing, while there are nine which have not been successful in
making so rapid a progress. I, under these circumstances,
am very much afraid that the time which your lordships I
have given to the considerationof these bills will havebeen,
so far as the present session is concerned, absolutely thrown
away. I now come to deal with the state of business gene-
rally as it stands inthe House of Commons, and that, I find,
presents by no means a satisfactory aspect. There were in 1
that house this morning only three bills awaiting a third
reading; eight awaited consideration, having been ;
amended, while there were no less than 41 set down for
committee, including 10 which were sent down from this
house. Twenty-five, including nine others sent down by
your lordships, stood for second reading, and, over and
above this mass of business, there are, on the votes of the
other house, no less than six notices of motion for leave
to bring in bills—(a laugh)--which have yet to go through
all their stages. Among these are the Militia Ballot Expenses
Bill, the Medical Relief Bill, the 'Volunteers (Ireland) Bill,
the East India Judicature Bill, some of which are Govern-
ment measures. But more than this there are financial pro-
posals, in which case it will be necessary that the House of
Commons should go into committee, and pass resolutions to
form the groundwork of bills, which bills will then have
to pass through their several stages, and go through
your lordships' house, before the Appropriation Bill can
be introduced. (Hear, hear.) This, I think you will
agree with me, is no small amount of work to have to
accomplish, especially when I tell you that this morning
that huge impediment, the Bankruptcy Bill, consisting of
500 and odd clauses, stood at the head of the list—a bill
which the Attorney-General, like another Sisyphus, is en-
deavouring to roll up the Parliamentary hill, but which no
sooner reaches the top than it comes down again with far
greater rapidity than it ascended. (Laughter.) I said this
bill stood at the head of the list in the House of Commons
this morning, but I believe it does so no more, for if I am
not misinformed, among the other painfU sacrifices which
her Majesty's Ministers have been obliged to make is the
abandonment of these 500 and odd clauses. (A laugh.)
But there yet remain the Highways Bill, the Ecclesiastical
Commission Bill, and the European Forces in India Bill—
one of the most important and difficult measures with
which the Government is called upon to deal, besides the
Poor-Law Bcard Continuance Bill, the bills relating to the
tenure of land in Ireland, the London Corporation Bill—
which, to my certain knowledge, has been for some years on
the votes of the House of Commons—the Roman Catholic
Charities Bill, making together with several other measures
which I need not more particularly mention, but many of
which are of considerable importance, 77 bills in the other
House of Parliament, in various stages, from which if I de-
duct the 19 bills to which I have already alluded as having
passed your lordships' house, there will be left 58, none of
which, or very few of which, have yet—at the end of July
—gone through committee. (Hear.) I hive, however, in
the observations which I have made given your lordships
but a very feeble picture of the embarrassment of the Go-
vernment in regard to the business of the country. I say
this, because I have been informed by a right hon. gentle-
man who is likely to know that, according to the best cal-
culation that can be made, eight or nine nights more will
be required to get through the votes in supply which still
remain to be passed. (Hear.) Now, when you take into
account the fact that the Government have only two, or at
the utmost three nights in each week at their disposal, I ask
you what prospect there is at this period of the session that
the 58 bills which I have mentioned will receive that con-
sideration to which they are entitled, and without receiving
which it would reflect no credit on Parliament that they
should be allowed to pass into a law. (Hear, hear.) And
what, let me ask, is likely to be the result of this state of
things ? Why that, with perhaps a few insignificant excep-
tions, measures on the expediency of which the opinion of
the country has been clearly pronounced, and the main prin-
ciples of which met with almost universal approval, will
fall to the ground, a sacrifice to that general massacre which
usually takes place about this time of the year, so that legis-
lation will have been absolutely brought to a standstill, and
but little or nothing will have been accomplished in that
direction during a session which has already lasted six
months, and which will not in all probability terminate for
a month or six weeks to come. (Cheers.) Now, this, my
lords, is a subject which, in my opinion, will press itself
upon your attention more and more year after year,
and if for the evils which it involves no remedy can be
provided the result must be that Parliament will be placed
in a position neither creditable to itself nor useful to the
hear.) Surrounding circumstances have
nation. (Hear)
in the present session been favourable to legislation.
The Thames this summer has been more inoffensive than
has of late been its wont. (A. laugh.) The temperature has
been such as to enable the members of the House of Com-
mons to go through their senatorial labours without the
feeling of absolute exhaustion. (Laughter.) But, with all
these incentives to work, it is too much to suppose that a
large number of the independent members of that house
could go through six weeks of slavery, sitting from 10 to 14
hours a day. And, if men could be found to accomplish. so
great a task, I feel certain that the physical prostrate&

consequent on the exertion is not the means by which
they would be best fitted to give due consideration to
details of the measures brought under their notice, which,
under these circumstances, there would be a tendency to
slur over, so as to get rid of measures themselves, with
the view of sending them up as speedily as possible to
your lordships' house. (Hear, hear.) Sneh, my lords,
being the evils with which we have to contend, where are
we to find for them a palliation or a remedy ? Great bene-
fit, it must be admitted, has been conferred by the opera •
lion of the resolution of my noble friend (Lord Redesdale),
in accordance with which your lordships will not, after
a certain day, undertake the responsibility of dealing with
a measure which it is impossible for you—owing to the
time at which it is laid before you—to consider
satisfactorily. In former years, bills which were post-
poned until a late period of the session were
frequently passed with extravagant haste. I find that in
one year—Parliament having been prorogued on the sth of
September-37 bills received the Royal assent in that month
and 61 in the August immediately preceding, while only
27 received the Royal assent before the end of July of tho
same year. I also find that in 1853 only 40 bills received
the Royal assent before the end of July, while in the follow-
ing August 97 were added to the legislation of the country.
It is impossible that these measures could have received the
attention due to every bill which passes your lordships'
house, and the consequence of such a system is that year
after year we are called on to pass Acts for the purpose of
amending mistakes, whether of this or of the other house,
which have been committed from the great haste and
necessary carelessness with which these bills are considered.
Some 12 years ago I called your lordships' attention to this
subject, and I at that time proposed a measure to which I
had the satisfaction of obtaining your lordships' concur-
rence, for enabling the House of Lords, and vice versa, the
House of Commons, to take up at the commencement of
the next session the bills which should make their appear-
ance as remanets from the session before. I am per-
fectly satisfied that in one mode or other, if we desire to
obviate the evils of the present system, we must come to
some understanding by which the principle embodied in
that bill shall be adopted. The measure received very
general concurrence on the part of your lordships. I am
afraid I must make one illustrious exception in the person
of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees, who op-
posed alike its principle and details. The noble lord on
the woolsack, I recollect, was favourable to the plan
proposed in the bill, but objected to its being introduced
into an Act of Parliament, and suggested that the same
abject might be effected by resolutions of the two houses.
Now, I am not about to make any distinct proposition
to your lordships. I have desired to call your lord-
ships' attention to the state of public business at the
present moment, and to the absolute necessity there will
be of sacrificing a great portion of the bills now standing
on the paper, and thereby rendering useless the labours of
this and of the other House of Parliament. And snore
especially I would say that it is a matter for the sincerest
regret that those measures for the consolidation of the
criminal law which were sent down from this house, as
to which all parties were agreed, have been left, I know not
why, except for the great press of other business, to so late
a period of the session that there is little probability of their
passing the House of Commons, notwithstanding that but
slight or no opposition is made to them. (Hear.) But if an
illustration be needed of the importance of our being able
to carry on legislation from one session to another, I cannot
have a better example than is afforded by the Bankruptcy
Bill. That was a measure with regard to which probably a
much larger number of members in proportion to those who
attend in your lordships' house than in the House of Com-
mons were fully informed and competent to decide. The
550 clauses of that bill ought to have been elaborately dis-
cussed in both houses, but after two or three nights in cone •
mittee, and before half its provisions have been gone
through in the House of Commons, it is found absolutely
necessary, I understand, to abandon the bill, and all the
labour bestowed upon it has been consequently lost. But,
supposing that bill had coma up to us in the month of
August, what would have been the alternative placed before
us ? We should have been oalled on to abandon and throw
over altogether this very material alteration, and I hope
very great amendment, in the commercial law and practice
of this country; or else to pass on credit, and without due
consideration, a bill of 500 clauses, on a subject as to which
a very large number of those in your lordships' house are
peculiarly qualified to judge and to give sound opinions.
(Cheers.) I take that as an example of the position in which
we should have been placed if this bill, which unfortunately
has not received the sanction of the House of Commons,
had been sent up to your lordships. I ask what can be a
course more prudent than that a bill which has been passed
by the Lower House, and the principle of which has re- j
ceived the sanction of your lordships, should be left over for
the consideration of its details to the commencement of the
next session of Parliament, when we know that a general
complaint is made at the commencement of every session
that we have little or no business before us, and that in the
interval bills which have passed the House of Commons
will be submitted to examination and criticism by the pub-
lic generally, so that your lordships in approaching the
consideration of these measures will have the opportunity
of knowing, not only the opinions put forward by the
other house, but the view taken by the public of
their principles and details. (Hear, bear.) That appears
to me the plain and obvious solution of the difficulty., Of
course, such a plan could only be carried out with the
sanction and concurrence of the House of Commons, in
such cases as they were satisfied in the next session to ac-
cept the decision of the House of Lords as amendments to
their bill, instead of beginning over again from the begin-
ning and carrying it through all the different stages, by
which so much time was previously lost. An arrangement
of this nature would afford the two houses the amplest
means of deliberation, while the public would obtain the
benefit of well considered instead of hasty and ill-consi-
dered legislation. (Hear, hear.) Of course it would be
perfectly competent to the other or to either House of Par-
liament to decline taking those amendments into conside-
ration, and to drop the bill if they thought fit to do so, but
I am quite sure the business of the house would be much
facilitated and the interests of the country greatly advanced
by any agreement come to between the two houses for the
purpose of carrying into effect the principle, at all events,
which I have stated to your lordships, and to which
I endeavoured 12 years ago to obtain the sanction of Par-
liament. It is said the effect of this bill will be to encou-
rage attempts at legislation, that persons will bring for-
ward bills hoping, though they may not pass in one ses-
sion, that ultimately they may become law. For my part,
I cannot help thinking that, although it might afford en-
couragement to the introduction of measures, it would at
the same time afford the best means of giving to those mea-
sures, when they were introduced, the fullest and most im-
partial consideration. Moreover, there is at present great
temptation in the House of Commons to the promoters of
bills to hurry them forward in order that they may be
brought under the consideration of this house within the
time limited for your lordships' sitting. On the other
hand, there is equal temptation to the opponents of bills,
however valuable and important they may be, to interpose
unnecessary obstructions by way of delay, and delay only,
with the security that if they can only postpone the pass-
ing of the bill till after the period fixed by your lordships'
resolutions it will bo altogether lost. Now, Ido not consi-
der in ordinary cases that such is a fair mode of opposition
to measures in the other House of Parliament; and I am
quite sure a great motive for that kind of resistance would
be taken away if the persons resorting to it were aware that
even if they succeeded in protracting the passing of a bill
beyond a particular time it would not have the effect of de-
stroying it altogether and of rendering it necessary to begin
next year all over again, but would only cause the post-
ponement of its consideration to another session, when the
other house would be able to deal with it as it thought fit.
I do not pretend to point out to your lordships the mode in
which the object to which I have directed attention is to be
attained, but I think you will be satisfied that the present
state of legislation is not satisfactory to this house, to the
other house, nor to the country—(hear)—that many and
very valuable measures which well deserve to pass are lost,
that much valuable time is sacrificed in either hot.se, and
that with regard to the legislation which does take place, a
great portion of it is of necessity so hasty and inconsiderate
as to require very early and frequent amendment. My lords,
all these things are of constant annual recurrence ; and ac-
cording to the mode in which business is conducted, I see no
hope that they will not continue to be of annual recurrence.
I know no possible mode of counteracting the evil effect of
this waste of the greater part of the session, save by en-
abling measures to be postponed from July to February, as
they may now be postponed from February to July, and as
they are sometimes deferred by a prorogation or even by a
dissolution of Parliament. I think I am not mistaken when
I say that after the dissolution of 1859, this house, at all
events, passed a resolution declaring that private bills which
had reached a certain stage should be allowed, when Par-
liament met again, to be resumed at the point at which
they had been left by the dissolution. I do not propose
any rule of this kind with regard to a dissolution, because
it must alter the constitution of the House of Com-
mons, which agreed to the bill, and consequently that
house easy refuse to receive as mere amendments
alterations to the measures passed by their predecessors.
But with regard to the prorogation, I cannot see any rea •
sonable ground why the same power should not exist of
postponing a bill over a prorogation that may be applied
indefinitely to the adjournment of Parliament, even al-
though it may be from February to July. There are vari •
ous modes in which this object may be effected. The mode
adopted in 1848, which received the general concurrence of
your lordships, was the framing of an act enabling both
houses to take the course which I have described. It was
not thought expedient, however, in the House of Commons
to press the consideration of that act, which accordingly
fell to the ground, and the question has not since been re-
newed. Another mode was suggested by the noble lord on
the woolsack—namely, that the two houses should simul-
taneously appoint committees which might be placed in
communication with each other, and on their separate re-
ports, corresponding with each other, resolutions might be
passed which would accomplish the desired object. I do
not know whether any advantage would be derived in this
case from a conference between the two houses ; the in-
stances, at all events, are very rare in which a question has
been referred to a joint committee ; but in some one of these
modes I do think it most important that the opinion of both
houses should be taken, and that means should be dis-

covered of remedying what everybody admits to he a! ,
grievance Ido not undertake to suggest to your lordships
which of these modes would be the preferable course. On
the contrary, I think it is a matter which had much better I
be left to the Government; and an consultation with their
colleagues in.th 3 other house, they will propose such a Dina • ,
sure as they on' their responsibility shall think fit. I do
not t asrefore intend to trespass further on your lordzhips
indulgence then to lay before you the statement which I
have made as to the state of public business, and the nature
of the only remedy which I believe can be successful. If it
be convenient to the house, for the sake of regularity. I
shall move that a committee be appointed to consider
this question, of cours3 without the slightest intention of
pressing that motion. I hope my noble friend the Presi-
dent of the Council, who I presume will follow me, will not
satisfy himself with saying, in his usual courteous manner,
that he is sure the house and the Government are much in-
debted to the noble earl opposite—(cheers and laughter)—
for the pains which he has taken in making his remarks on
this subject, and for the very clear exposition which he has
given of the difficulties of the case ; and that he would
assure the noble lord that he concurs with him in thinking
the subject one of very deep importance, and that it shall
receive the very best consideration of the Government.
(Renewed laughter and cheers.) Of course, I don't expect
any specific plan from my noble friend to-night, but I hope
to obtain from him something more definite than the cour-
teous answer which I have heard from him on more than
one occasion. I hope he will give us some intimation of
the view which the Government take of this question, and
that he will be able to say whether or not his colleagues
are of opinion that any legislation or any resolution, or any
other course by which an agreement might be come to by
both houses, is likely to meet with success, or would in
their opinion be a mode of diminishing, if not altogether
doing away with the inconvenience which both houses, and
your lordships' house in particular, must feel in being
called on either to reject bills passed by the other house,
and thus to render it necessary t,3 begin again with them
next session with probably as little chance of success, or
else to pass them without giving them that consideration
which it is due to your character and the interest of the
country you should give before affixing your sanction to
any legislative measure. (Hear.) The noble earl concluded
by a formal motion for the appointment of a select committee.
Earl GRANYlLLE—Notwithstanding the protest of the
noble earl, I must say that I think both houses are indebted
to him for having brought the subject under our notice, and
further, that I think he has made a most clear statement of
the evils which exist. (Hear, hear.) The house will agree
with me, too, that the noble earl has amply redeemed the
pledge which he gave the other night that he intended to
treat the question entirely as one of public importance and
divested of any party spirit. (Hear.) lam free to admit
that there are circumstances this year, though as far as the
Government is concerned a satisfactory explanation of them
night be given, which a leader of Opposition might be
tempted to make use of in a party spirit. There is no doubt
as to the existence of the evil, though I think there is some-

thing to be said on the other side. My noble friend said tha
somewhere about 150 bills had been, or would be, brough
under the consideration of Parliament this session. I am
not altogether clear whether it is desirable that that number
of bills should be passed every session ; but, on the other
hand, there is no doubt that the present difficulties of legis-
lation do prevent useful measures being passed, for no other
reason but the accumulation of business. This is not a new
evil. The noble earl himself says he called attention to it 12
years ago ; and I remember hearing both Lord Aberdeen and
Lord Lansdowne say that they had heard similar complaints
fornearly 50 years past. At the same time it must be admitted
that the evil is rather on the increase than the decrease, and
this year it has been so great as to be hindrance to the pass-
ing of useful and necessary measures. (Hear.) The noble earl
said that one remedy which we have attempted to apply
was the resolution which we pass annually, fixing a certain
day after which we will not read a bill a second time. I
remark that that resolution has been pointed to elsewhere
as a hindrance to legislation, and I have often thought that
it was a resolution which might fairly be questioned. It
was agreed to by your lordships, however, for your own de-
fence, and as far as I can form en opini n, if acted upon with
a certain elasticity, it works usefully, and has net a disad-
vaxtageous effect on the legislation of the other house.
(Hear.) With regard to the other remedy proposed by the
noble earl—the suspending of bills at a certain stage, so as
to make it possible to take them up in another session—it
is a most important question, and one to which, so far as
your lordships are concerned, you have given your assent
by passing the bill of the noble earl same years ago. Con-
stitutional objections may be urged to it, I believe ; but,
not having perhaps thoroughly considered the subject, I
cannot see the force of them. With regard to private
bills, where both houses act more as courts of
justice than legislative bodies, it is an immense
hardship on parties, when, for a public object, they
have gone to a considerable expense in promoting a bill,
that, having got to a certain stage, if they don't get a step
further the whole of the money is sacrificed and they have
to begin again. (Hear, hear.) A question was raised as to
the principle here involved in the case of the impeachment
of Warren Hastings. If I remember rightly the lawyers
raised an objection that the impeachment abated in conse-
quence of a dissolution. I don't know that they were not
right, but they were laughed out of it by Burke, who said
that " though they might be competent to understand the
gestation of a mouse they were not competent to under-
stand the gestation of an elephant." This shows, however,
thatia:constitutional objection might be raised. At the same
time, there is no doubt that any general change in the
principle of our legislation is one which requires the
greatest care. (Hem-, hear.) My noble friend said he
hoped I would not give any vague answer. Well, I am
ready to inform him that I have communicated with my
colleagues in the other house several times on the sub-
ject, but in the present pressure of business the Go-
vernment have not found it possible to bestow that atten-
tion to the subject which it is necessary to give before com-
mitting themselves to any definite plan. During the recess
the subject will receive full consideration, and if it appears
likely that any satisfactory result would be obtained I think
it would be most d esirable that some inquiry should take
place in order to arrive unanimously, if possible, at some plan
which would be of assistance to the progress of legislation.
I believe there has not been a joint committee of both houses
for 200 years, but it is quite competent to both houses to
appoint a joint committee. I believe the objection which
led to their ceasing came from your lordships. You objected
that the House of Commons would not take off their hats, as
at a conference—(a laugh)—and you also objected to their
claim to have a double number of members. If a joint
committee were not appoints d the other plan of the noble
earl might be adopted—two separate committees to con-
sider the question, authorised to communicate with each
other. These, however, are matters of detail, which
may be considered during the recess. I don't propose
to take any action this year. Among other reasons, be-
sides the lateness of the session, it is quite clear
that it is not the best moment to choose to propose a
joint action on any subject of this kind, when' questions
have arisen between the two houses with regard to which a
certain number of members feel a soreness at an unusual
proceeding of your lordships. It is obvious that, whatever
measure is adopted, it should be as nearly as possible unani-
mously adopted by both houses. (Hear, hear.)
Lord BROUGHAM concurred with the Lord President in
thanking Lord Derby for the clear, useful, and (to coin a
word to describe a novelty) " unparty" statement which he
had made on this subject. It was the duty of Parliament,
without more delay than was absolutely necessary, to endea-
vour to apply a remedy to this evil, but circumstances had
recently occurred which rendered it expedient that imme •
diate action should not be taken. The course which he
would recommend would be a joint committee, and in what-
ever way that committee was composed—whether or not the
Commons had an equal number—he was sure that they
would not be found to give their votes in two divisions, one
of the Lords and the other of the Commons, so as to bring
matters to a standstill, but that the important subject com-
mitted to them should be fairly and calmly discussed, with
a view of arriving at some practical and useful result. Par-
liamentary Government was on its trial at present, and never
till the present session, in the opinion of foreign countries,
had it shown itself so incompetent for the discharge of its
functions. People elsewhere thought that only one mode
of free Government was tolerable, and it was one which we
deemed intolerable—viz., universal suffrage. Universal
suffrage meant government by the mob, armed and unarmed,
and a dictator presiding over that multitude. That was
the form which was supposed elsewhere to be the perfection
of free government, and which was set up in contrast to
parliamentary government. His belief was that our Parlia-
mentary Government, with all its faults, was infinitely pre-
ferable to anything of that description, as it was not free,
but despotic, whereas ours was free and capable of improve-
ment. (Hear, hear.) He believed that either by standing
orders of both houses, or by act of Parliament, or by some
other measure resulting from the action of a joint committee,
the greater part of the mischief could be greatly mitigated,
if not wholly remedied. The motion on Fridays in the
other house, that upon its rising it adjourn to Monday, gave
rise to endless debates, to the exclusion of every other sub-
ject, and to the postponement and defeat of most important
measures. It was a most mischievous practice, which had
been introduced only in recent times, and could be remedied
at once by a standing order. He would not enter further
into the proceedings of the other house, for which he en-
tertained the greatest possible respect, and for that par-
ticular proceeding he entertained all the respect which was
possible. (Laughter.) He believed that much might be
done without any Act of Parliament, by orders and resolu-
tions of the two houses, backed by that without which all
orders and resolutions would prove of no avail—viz., a firm
determination on the part of the leaders in Parliament to
carry the resolutions which had been formed into effect
(Hear, hear.)
Lord REDESDALE agreed with the noble earl the i
he Pre -
sidcnt of the Council that they should be very
cautious n
altering their proceedings, as they had been found upon the
whole to work well. The question could not be fairly judged
by particular instances. His noble friend had instanced
the very strong case of the Bankruptcy Bill, which was of
enormous length, but involved no party feeling. But let
them take, on the other hand, the Reform Bill. It was
necessary for the promoters of it to persevere to a certain
degree, on account of its importance, although, not having
with sufficient consideration, it did not meet
been framed
with approbation, but was withdrawn from the general con-

viction that it could not get through both houses in the ses-
sion. But if the Government could have carried it through
the House of Commons, and then passed it up to this house
for discussion in the ensuing session, would not agreat deal
more pressure have been put upon the Government not to
drop it, and would that not have led to a greater consump-
tion of time than had already taken place ? (Hear.) And,
ha would ask, could anything be more mischievous than to
hang up a bill of that character during the recess? (Hear.)
He was not one who thought that they legislated too little.
Ile thought that upon the whole there was as much legis-
lation as was desirable for the country, and in some years a
esreat deal too much. He thought it an advantage that
this Bankruptcy Bill of 500 clauses should stand over for
another year, and be considered in the interval in all its
bearings. In some sessions a great deal of business was
done because the measures had been previously considered.
This was the case in 1845. Perhaps no public measure
caused much greater excitement than the Maynooth Act.
It was introduced early, and occupied a great deal of time,
buethey passed the Companies Clauses Act, of 165 clauses,
and a Scotch Act equally as long, the Lands Clauses Act,
of 153 clauses, and a Scotch Act of about as many, and the
Railway Clauses Act, of 165 clauses, before the middle of
July. Nlost of these provisions were tee result of previous
experience, but with that experience and the conviction that
some general legislation was. desirable, they were passed,
notwithstanding their minuteness of detail, theit extreme
length, and the manner in which they affected the interests
of private individuals. In the same session they passed the
Poor Law Amendment (Scotland) Bill, with 92 clauses, a
new system of Customs regulations, embodied in a bill of
163 clauses, a bill for the registration of British vessels,and
other measures ; and in the same session the Enclosure
Commission Bill was introduced, which contained 169
clauses. It showed there was great power of legislation in
Parliament if there was a disposition to use it, and he be-
lieved the failure of bills was, in a great degree, owing to
doubts arising as to their soundness, and to the unwilling-
ness, therefore, of Parliament to entertain them. But, sup.
posing any remedy were desirable, this was not the house in
which a resolution was necessary. With regard to any
amount of businesswhich they were called upon to do, they
were always ready to do it, and if the other house were to
adopt a little snore the practice of this house in the manner
of conducting its proceedings, he believed that the business
would be carried on in a much more rapid manner. He did
not say that because he wished the other house should in
the present session enter upon a discussion of the subject,
because it would onlyoccupy one of thosenights which were
already too few for the measures which must pass. The re-
medy could be effected in the other house by an order. For
example, supposing the Bankruptcy Bill had passed the
Commons, they could, if theychose, send it up to this house
next session, without commencing de novo. It was not for
their lordships to inquire whether it had been read a first,
second, or third time, or whether after a single debate it had
been sent up in the same shape in which it passed those
stages in the session preceding. Such a mode of treating
measures was not necessary in their lordships' house, be-
cause they could find enough time to consider every mea-
sure, but if any s emedy in the other house were necessary,
that course might be adopted, and perhaps limited to bills
of great length and of a particular character. With regard
to other bills, he was of opinion that there was often an ad-
vantage in a bill being lost, and that the proper control of
Parliament would be r. eri lied if the Government had the
power to suspend bills and take them up again in the next
session. (Hear, hear.) He trusted that great reluctance'
would be shewn to depart from that principle upon which
the legislation of the country had been so long and satis-
factorily conducted by both houses of Parliament.
The LORD. CHANCELLOR said that, althoughhe took
great interest in this subject, and had devoted a consider-
able degree of attention to it, he would content himself with
thanking the noble earl for the flattener in which he had
brought it under the notice of their lordships. (Hear.) He
did not agree with his noble friend who had just spoken in
thinking that no improvement could be effected in the pre-
sent mode of transacting the business of Parliament. He
believed that their mode of legislation was capable of amend-
ment ; but he refrained from going into any details at that
moment. He would be happy to use his best exertions to
bring forward a measure on the subject, with the assistance
of his colleagues, and he hoped with the support of the
noble earl, than whom no one was more capable of giving
advice. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of DERBY then withdrew his motion.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER was in attendance at 12 o'clock, but the
sufficient number of members not being present, no busi-
ness was transacted before half-past 12 o'olsak.
PRIVATE BUSINESrI.
The Lords' amendments to the following bills were con-
sidered and agreed to :—Bradford, Wakefield, and Leeds
Railway; Great Northern and Metropolitan Junction
Railway ; Land Loan and Improvement Company ; and
Scottish Drainage and Improvement Company.
The Monkland Railway Bill was read a third time, and
Lord De Freyne's Estate Bill a second time.
GALWAY HARBOUR (No. 2) BILL.
On the motion of Mr. C. FORSTER, the following
motion was agreed to :—" That standing orders Nos. 199
and 203 be suspended in the case of the Galway Harbour
(No. 2) bill, and that the bill be read a second time to-
morrow. _

...-..- .
LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill, which was
introduced by the Attorney-General for Ireland.
On clause 1,
Mr. M'MAHON moved that the chairman do leave the
chair. This was a bill which was entirely for the benefit
of the landlord, as far as it could be gathered from a careful
study of its provisions, for the Government had not stated
what its real objects were. He thought before they pro-
ceeded further in the consideration of the bill that it should
be reprinted. The bill contained 106 sections and repealed
57 acts of Parliament, while it changed altogether the re-
lation between landlord and tenant. Every one who

wished well to Ireland must desire that the laws of Eng-
land should be extended to that country, but this bill had
the contrary effect, for instead of the usual contract be-
tween the landlord and tenant in regard to land, it substi-
tuted a parliamentary contract. By the 31st section
it was provided that any tenant having less than a
perpetual interest in the land was prohibited from cutting
down trees, and for cutting a hedge, or even a gooseberry
bush, he was subject to a penalty of £5. The hon. and
learned member here quoted the authority of some practical
writers on this subject, to show the injurious objection of
this provision. It was further provided by the bill that if a
tenant violated his covenant in regard to cropping, accord-
ing to his landlord's view, he might be taken before a jus-
tice of peace and sentenced to three months' imprisonment.
Certainly there was an appeal to the courts of law, but in the
meantime he might be undergoing imprisonment, and the
justice of the peace was subject to no penalty under the
act for anything he did, however unjust it might subse-
quently demonstrated to have been. What he asked was that
the landlord and tenant should n it be interfered with, or if
the legislature did meddle with them, at least it should be
for giving Ireland the same law as prevailed in this country.
Again, with regard to eviction, the powers given to land-
lords were very arbitrary, for it enabled him to eject a
tenant in opposition to an expressed or modified contract, in
the ease of the land being overheld. The hon. and learned
gentleman contended that in regard to distressing a tenant
the law was also most unfair in the power it gave the land-
lord, and read some of the acts which the bill proposed to
repeal without any substitution. He concluded by appeal-
ing to the house not to proceed with the bill at this ad-
vanced period of the session, when there was such a thin
attendance, and when they had no chance of passing it
through the House of Lords.
Mr. WHITESIDE seconded the amendment, and con-
tended that the bill was a failure as it did not deal with the
law of fixture and distress. In the bill which he had in-
troduced on this subject provisions were made in reference
to these points, and he recommended to the Attorney-Ge-
neral for Ireland to postpone any measure on this subject
until next session.
After a few words from Mr. COOPER,
Mr. DEASY said he did not think the conduct of the
hon. andlearned member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon) was
fair to him or to the house, considering that the bills had
been, discussed and the principle affirmed on the second
reading. The hon. and learned member was not present on
that occasion, and it was unjust to re-open subjects which
had already been decided ; and with reference to his state-
ment, as to no explanation having been offered by Govern-
ment, he reminded the house that on the occasion of the
second reading he explained the main provisions of the
measure, though he thought it unnecessary to enter into
details as the bill had virtually been before the house for
the last four or five years. It would have been fairer to him
(Mr. Deasy) if the hon. and learned member had given him
notice of amendments to any particular clauses, and on. the
second reading of the bill, he invited the co-operation of
legal gentlemen and the criticism of the house ;
pass a bill that
his only object was to
would improve the law between landlord and tenant.
He denied that the bill was unjust to the tenant
because it provided for facilitating the law in the enforce-
ment of contracts between landlord and tenent. Nothing
was so injurious to the tenant as the existing state of the
law, as it afforded temptations to litigation, and induced
him to expend his money in law instead of on improving
the land or paying his rent. He adverted to two cases
illustrating his opinion, which had recently come under his
experience. When the clauses came before the committee
he would be prepared to rec nsider, amend, or expunge if
it was shown to him to be desirable. (Hear, hear.) The
bill was some time before the house. 1t was brought in im-
mediately after his resolution, and read a second time on.
the 15th May. Notwithstanding that he had invited the
assistance and suggestions of his legal friends in Ireland as
well as those interested in the lama, there was no objection
made to him against the bill, but on the contrary he
had received from both classes strong expressions of ap-
proval of its provisions, and requests urging him to press
it forward this session. He did not consider the provisions
of the bill of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) cal-
culated to simplify the law, and they were likely to tend to
litigation, which was the reason wb.y he did not introduce
them into his bill.
Mr. LEFROY considered that the objections of title hon.
member (Mr. M'Mahon) were =rev sonable, but at the