The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY 'AVENING, 'APRIL 25, 1861.

The Select Committee appointed to consider
whether, by any alterations in the forms and pro-
ceedings of the House of Commons, the despatch of
public business can be more effectually promoted,
have considered the matters to them referred, and
have agreed to the following report
1. In discharge of the duty confided to them,
your committee, in the first instance, directed their
attention to the inquiries and report of three select
committees, which have been appointed within the
last 30 years for the purpose of considering the best
means whereby public business might be conducted
in the House of Commons with improved regularity
and despatch.
2. The first of these committees was appointed in
1837, and recommended only two changes, compa-
ratively small, in the ancient rules and established
orders, both of which were adopted by the house.
3. The second committee was appointed in 1848.
Mr. Evelyn Denison, the present Speaker of the
House of Commons, presided over it. Various im-
portant changes were considered by that committee.
The evidence of distinguished foreigners was taken
with regard to the forms and order of proceeding
in the popular assemblies of France and of the
United States of America. No changes based on
these models were recommended. The alterations
adopted were six in number, although many others
were discussed. The most important of them was
that by which the rule of progress was applied to
committees of the whole house on public bills.
4. Again in 1854 the same question was referred
to a third committee. They also took evidence, and
entered into a larger inquiry. They heard the opi-
nion of Lord Eversley, then Speaker, with respect
both to the causes of delay in the transaction of
public business, and the remedies which might be
applied ; 36 alterations were proposed by the chair-
man ; they were tantamount to a revision of the
standing orders of the house, and to a change of
many ancient usages; but the committee were un-
able to concur in the great majority of these pro-
posals, and ended in making to the house nine re-
commendations. Eight of these were adopted.
They were of the same character as those which
were sanctioned by the house on the report of the
committee in 1848, and may be regarded rather as
supplementary aids than as decisive changes.
5. On all these occasions, the house and its com-
mittees have proceeded with the utmost caution.
They have treated with respect the written and the
unwritten law of Parliament, which for ages has
secured a good system of legislation, perfect free-
dom of debate, and a due regard for the rights of
minorities.
6. This respect for tradition and this caution in
making changes have proceeded on the principle
that no change is justifiable which- experience has
not proved to be necessary,and that the maintenance
of the old rules is preferable to new, but specula-
tive, amendments.
7. It is also to be observed, that this caution in
making changes had not been unproductive of ad-
vantage. The new rules, which have been intro-
duced in consequence of the reports of the three
committees above enumerated, have been found to
work so well, that not one of them has been hitherto
either altered or rescinded.
8. Such, then, being the principle on which pro-
posed alterations in the forms and proceedings of
the house may be safely founded, the question
arises, what are the objects to be kept steadfastly
in view when alterations are suggested or adopted ? .
9. These objects are well defined by Lord Evers-
ley in his evidence before the committee of 1854,
when (in answer to question 516) he says, "In all
the improvements that we have yet made in the
conduct of public business ; we have endeavoured,
as much as possible, to let the house understand
exactly what questions they will have to discuss,
and to prevent surprises, and also to give some cer-
tainty to our proceedings."
10. The present Speaker strongly corroborates
this opinion. He says that the most important
thing to which the attention of this committee can
be directed is certainty, day by day, so far as it is
possible, as to the business to be transacted ; and
that, for despatch, for the convenience of members,
and for decorum of proceedings, certainty is to be
regarded as the primary object.
11. Mr. Massey, also, the chairman of the Com-
mittee of Ways and Means, considers it desirable,
for the order of proceedings, as well as for the con-
I
venience of members, that some closer approxima-
tion to certainty in the arrangement of the business
of the house should, if possible, be effected.
12. In pursuit of this object of greater certainty
in the proceedings of the house, the special atten--
tion of your committee was called by the Speaker
to the motions constantly made before going into
Committees of Supply. Although only one amend-
ment to each motion, " That the Speaker do leave
the chair," can be put to the vote, yet the attention
of the house may on that motion be called to any
number of questions, and a long debate may be
taken before the house resolves itself into a com-
mittee. This course may be daily repeated on the
same class of estimates, and long delay as well as
uncertainty is the consequence before the details of
the estimates can be considered. The remedy sug-
gested by Mr. Speaker is, that upon the four great
heads of the army, the navy, the revenue depart-
ments, and the civil service, the house, having once
gone into committee, might, on that same head of
estimates, resume its deliberations in committee
without any question being put. In a word, that
the same rule of progress which prevails with re-
gard to committees on bills, might be extended to
Committees of Supply on these four classes of esti-
mates. This suggestion was offered to the committee
of 1854, as appears from their report; yet, from fear
of unduly limiting the opportunities of debate and
of the discussion of grievances, the committee, while
admitting the inconvenience complained of, declined
to recommend the adoption of any new rule by the
house. This cause of delay, if it be an evil, has now
for seven years remained unchecked, and, in the
opinion of the Speaker, the delay has increased.
At the same time, without imposing some new re-
striction, it is admitted by the Speaker to be impos-
sible to avoid these delays, and to give greater cer-
tainty to progress in Committees of Supply.
13. Your committee have anxiously considered
the policy of imposing some such check. The time
consumed in these preliminary discussions was in
the last session on an average three hours each day
on the 11 occasions when the motion was made for
the Speaker leaving the chair to go into committee
on these four classes of estimates, which is equiva-
lent to the average of time occupied in four Govern-
ment order days. It cannot be denied that these
multiplied preliminary motions are a serious obstacle
to certainty in the proceedings of the house, and
are a cause of much delay. On the other hand, it
must be remembered that the statement and consi-
deration of grievances before Supply are among the
the most ancient and important privileges of the
Commons, and this opportunity of obtaining full
explanation from the Ministers of the Crown is the
surest and the best. Before going into a Commit.
tee of Supply, the Ministers have an interest both
in making a house and keeping a house. The debate
proceeds, with the Speaker in the chair, with an
appropriate motion under discussion, and the
strictest rules of debate are necessarily observed.
Your committee, moreover, apprehend that the ap-
plication of the ruleofprogress as proposed to Com-
mittee of Supply might produce serious inconve-
nience by creatinc, an additional obstacle to the
Speaker leaving the chair for the first time on going
into any class of estimates, and thereby delaying
votes in Supply which mar be of great importance
to the public service. On the whole, therefore, your
committee adhere to the decision of the committee ,
in 1854, and have not thought it expedient to re-
commend a departure from established usage in this
particular.

14. Under this same head of greater certainty,
and of avoiding needless consumption of time, an-
other question presented itself, which had been con-
sidered by the committegg in 1854, " That the
house at its rising do adjourn to Monday
next." The committee of 1854 recommended that,
by a standing order, the house on Friday " should
stand adjourned till the following Monday, with-
out question put, unless the house should other-
wise resolve." This recommendation was brought
in 1854 under consideration of the house ; it
tonot negatived, but the motion to give effect
n
it was withdrawn, from the disinclination of the
house to adopt it. ' This disinclination has been
indicated in a marked manner for the last seven
years,stour
onr
and now almost invariably on every Friday a
'liscussion takes place on the motion of
adj
objections went to Monday. Doubtless, many grave
be urged against these discussions,
especially no
because no atnn prolonged. They are inconclusive,
house can be
mendment to the question before the
adjenrouvint; theyoore irregular, because they have
icrestion put from the chair
they are nnsat isfact
tlie°y3'Eirbecause various subjects are
interlaced; and
a rte dangerous in their ten-
dency, as leadicg to
of
dollte,
the
maintenanxeaetion of the strict rules
0 jewhich rules in all
their itlfe4rily is essential to
of the 'Twos° of comwratoho4char.raeter and the
of
enied undefined
it now exists, ito pr)•3:77:; on the speakeir Itile practice, as
reTonsibility and em harrassin,r
to enforce order in discussions not strictleya,v,°darilng
and this responsibility
with refers is increased by
are to be put.
every t. er y'
a tempt
to classify the various topics,
nee to the
Minister to whom various questions
Attempts of this kind give rise to dissatisfaction,
as tending to obstruct the free current of debate.
Nevertheless these discussions have been found con.
venient, as affording prompt opportunities for bring-
ing before the house matters of interest as they
arise at short intervals; they often supersede the

necessity of formal motions, which would occupy
much longer time; and without altogether setting
aside the rules of debate, they give some latitude
to questions and answers, accompanied by reasons.
These balanced considerations have been weighed
by your committee. The Speaker, with the view
of attaining certainty as to the hour of commencing
the business of the day, suggested a limitation in
point of time, and proposed that at a given hour
on Friday the question of adjournment, if not
previously decided, should be :put, and the voices
be taken. A resolution to this effect was moved in
your committee, but was negatived, on a divi-
sion, by a majority of two, the ayes being
.eight
and the noes ten: This proposal is obviously
of the nature of a compromise; but it has been
urged that it removes none of the objections;
be
. it
restricts the advantages, if advantages there ,
would save some loss of time, at the expense of the
introduction of a new principle into the proceed-
ings of the house ; it would cut short debate by
the' clock, without adjournment, and before its
natural termination.
15. But your committee are of opinion that the
ractice might be equally ob-
egular manner.
atad
ivnae ad
i ng e
a s
m o f o there r p
16. In strict conformity with the ancient use of
the house, the motion for going into a Committee
of Supply or of Ways and Means does afford a
legitimate opportunity for the introduction of wide
and full discussion on every variety of subjects. A
range as unlimited as that now assumed on the
motion for adjournment to Monday is thereby
opened without the transgression of any rules or
usages of the house; and the vote in conclusion
bears relation to the debate which precedes it.
17. Your committee think it therefore expedient
to adopt the standing order recommended by the
committee of 1854, whereby the house at its rising
on Friday, without motion made, would stand ad-
journed to the Monday following, unless the house
shall otherwise resolve • but this on condition that
Friday be a Government order day throughout the
session, that the motion for a Committee of
Supply of Ways and Means stand first among the
Government orders ou that day.
18. The motion for adjournment on Fridays
would thus be superseded, and the proceedings on
Friday evenings, unrestricted, although desultory,
would be conducted according to the established
rules of debate, on a suitable motion, and with an
appropriate conclusion.
19. Apart from the consideration of the means
of giving greater certainty to the transaction of the
daily business of the house, your committee have
directed their attention to the inquiry whether any
impediments to the progress of measures from the
first commencement of each session can be justly
attributed to the standing orders.
20. By standing order, 25th June, 1852 (No. 408)
the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means
are fixed for Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and
for any other day on which orders of the day shall
have precedence of notices of motions.
21. By standing :orders 25th June, 1852
(No. 97), unless the house shall otherwise direct,
all orders of the day set down in the order-book for
Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, are to be dis-
posed of before the house will proceed on any mo-
tions of which notices shall have been given.
22. By No. 99 the orders of the day are to be dis-
posed of in the order in which they stand upon the
paper, the right being secured to her Majesty's Mi-
nisters of placing Government orders at the head
of the list, in the rotation in which they are to be
taken on the days on which Government bills have
precedence. •
23. The days on which this precedence is now
given to Government orders, at the commencement
of the session, are limited to two, namely, Monday
and Thursday; since, by a recent arrangement,
Thursday has been substituted for Friday as an
order day. On Wednesdays the Government orders
have no precedence, and the bills introduced by pri-
vate members generally occupy the whole of each
Wednesday, until the close of the session is at hand.
24. On Tuesdays and on Fridays notices of mo-
tion have precedence ; and the practical operation is
this, that on two only out of five sitting days in
each week can the Government business be brought
forward with certainty.
25. It is true that a third order day is generally
conceded to the Government towards the middle of
the session. But it must be remembered how large
a proportion of the public business transacted is
now devolved on the Ministers of the Crown. All
questions of Supply and of Ways and Means are
exclusively in their hands; and for the express
purpose of bringing large branches of the public
expenditure more closely under the annual review
of the House of Commons, numerous charges have
been recently removed from the Consolidated Fund,
and have been placed on the Estimates. Moreover,
the whole cost of the collection of the revenue is
now submitted in detail to annual vote. These
salutary changes have added greatly to the labours
of the Committee of Supply, and make a large de-
duction from the time available for Government
bills on order nights.
26. Although it is expedient to preserve for in-
dividual members ample opportunity for the intro-
duction and passing of legislative measures, yet it
is the primary duty of the advisers of the Crown to
lay before Parliament such changes in the law as
in their judgment are necessary; and while they
possess the confidence of the House of Commons,
and remain responsible for good government and
for the safety. of the state, it would seem reason-
able that a preference should be yielded to them,
not only in the introduction of their bills, but in
the opportunities for pressing them on the conside-
ration of the house.
27. It has been already observed that at an ad-
vanced period of the Session a third night in the
week is generally set apart for Government orders.
But it ought not to be forgotten that it is at the
commencement of the Session when the real pres-
sure is most urgent for the early transaction of the
Government business. The Mutiny Acts expire
annually on the 25th of April. Previously to their
introduction for renewal, the number of men must
be voted in a Committee of Supply. On the num-
ber of men mainly depends the annual charge for
the army and navy, which constitutes the largest
portion of the Supplies to be voted for the year.
Much discussion necessarily arises ; and thus, before
Easter, the two Government order nights in
each week are principally occupied by debates before
going into Committee of Supply on the Navy and
Army Estimates, and by the consideration of the
leading details of these two estimates in committee.
28. The obvious effect of this delay is to retard
legislation, and to postpone the consideration of the
Government bills untilafter Easter. A further con-
sequence is the failure of many bills which are in-
troduced. For this the Government cannot be fairly
blamed; some are withdrawn in the Commons
from the want of time fully to consider them ; others
miscarry in the House of Lords, where they are set
aside without discussion of their merits cn the
ground of the lateness of the session.
29. These considerations have led your committee
to the conclusion that more time should be given
for Government orders of the day from the first
commencement of each session ; and that standing
orders of the 25th of June, 1852, should be revised.
to
30recommen. With thd is view, your committee have agreed
Ist. That the Committees of Supply and Ways
Means may be fixed for any day on which the house
shall meet for despatch of public business.
2d. That on Friday, until the end of the present
session, orders of the day shall have precedence of
notices of motions, the right being reserved to her
Majesty's Ministers of placing Government orders
at the head of the list.
31. The first of these two recommendations will
tleoanvoetuicnetsoonfehmedottihoensporeveeerdoe
rndeeer sgiven
h co n
Tuesday.dpar)i-s.
vete members will continue to
enjoy, unchanged
and unrestricted, their present right of making
motions on Tuesdays, before any order of the day
can be considered ; and this recommendation if
adopted, will give on Tuesdays to the Ministers of
the Crown no power of placing their orders at the
head of the list. Its limited effect will be to enable
the Ministers to place Supply on Tuesdays among.
the orders of the day, but without precedence.
In the early part of the session this power may
not be operative ; but as the session advances
occasions will occur when progress in Supply may
be made on Tuesdays, after the termination of de
bates on motions.

32. An indirect effect also of this recommendation
may be anticipated. I is remarkable that, since
the yeaflBs6, on no else occasion has the house not
been made at 4 o'clock. In the present Parliament,
since July, 1859, the house has been counted out 18
times. This happened nine times out of the 18 on
Tuesdays, and eight times out of the nine Wore
9 o'clock. It may be conjectured that Ministers on
Tuesday's, having little business of their own fixed
for that day, are indifferent as to keeping a house.
The contingent right to bring on Supply at a later
hour of the evening would give to the Ministers an
interest in keeping a house, and a portion of a fifth
night in many weeks of the session might thus be
gained for public business.
33. These reasons have a bearing on the second
recommendation of your committee. Independently
of Tuesday, which vi ill continue to be the motion
night, the opportunities of making motions are nu-
merous throughout the session before going into
Committees of Supply and Ways and Means. With
the view of advancing public business, order days
are indispensable, and ou casting the balance between
motions and Orders your committee are of opinion
fort three days out of five in every week set apart
orders will greatly facilitate the despatch of
public business, without an undue encroachment on
the privilege of private members. Your committee

therefore recommend the trial of this change in the
standing orders at least for the present session.
34. Before the committee of 1854 Lord Eversley
(in answer to question 457) expressed an opinion
" that it would be desirable that a bill, which has
been committed to a select committee upstairs,
Should not in all cases pass through a committee of
the whole house." He thought that the present
practice of the house might be modified in this
particular, and that the rule of recommitting to a
committee of the whole house might in certain cases
be dispensed with.
35. The Speaker decidedly concurs in this opinion.
He says that " While other recommendations would
perhaps tend more to certainty in the conduct of
business, some alteration with regard to the pro-
ceedings in committee would, perhaps, tend to ex-
pedite public business more than anything which
has yet been considered." Mr. Speaker then pro-
ceeds to state fully his reasons for this opinion.
They are strong, and are clearly enunciated, and
your committee trust that they will receive the
careful consideration of the house.
36. It is not proposed that in any case a bill, after
its second reading, shall be referred to a select com-
mittee without a distinct motion from the chair, and
without the special order of the house. But on the
report from the select committee, it is proposed that
the bill shall not be recommitted to a committee of
the whole house, without a motion made and carried
to that effect. The presumption now is, that the
examination of a bill before a select committee is
insufficient; and that examination ought, clause by
clause, to be repeated in the house. By the pro-
posed change the presumption would be inverted.
The-examination of the bill before the select com-
mittee would stand good, and be held to be suffi-
cient, unless the house by vote should declare to the
contrary, and order the bill, either in whole or in
part, to be recommitted to a committee of the
whole house.
37. The precise nature of this proposal is worthy
of close attention. If a motion be made that a
bill after the second reading be referred to a
select committee, the house on each occasion will
have the opportunity of exercising its judgment
whether the principle and details of the measure are
so much intermixed as to render the reference to a
committee upstairs inexpedient. The controlling
power of the house over each bill will in no degree
be compromised. The decision to refer or not to
refer will remain entirely in their own hands ; and
when the report comes down from the select com-
mittee the house will have an ample opportunity
of revising the proceedings and the decisions of the
select committee. If they be sanctioned, the delay
and the unnecessary step of a reference to a com-
mittee of the whole house will be avoided ; if it be
deemed necessary or wise to reconsider the amend-
ments, on motion the bill will be recommitted, and
an appeal will thus be given to the judgment of
the whole house.
38. Without recommitting the entire bill, there
maybe frequently great advantagein recommitting
certain clauses only. The consolidation of the statute
law is now a great branch of law reform. But con-
solidation without amendment is imperfect, and the
re-enactment of the existing law without change
may be well considered in all its details exclusively
by a select committee, and a great saving of time
be thereby effected ; yet changes in the provisions
of the law ought still to be submitted to the collec-
tive wisdom of the house; and this might be con-
veniently done, if clauses containing new matter
were specially reported by the select committee,
and if these clauses only were recommitted to the
whole house.
39. The bills which have been sent down by the
Lords in the present session, for the consolidation
of an important branch of the criminal law, and for
the repeal of statutes which have fallen into desue-
tude, would afford a good opportunity for testing
the experiment. The latter bill contains a schedule
of /08 pages, in which are given the titles of nearly
800 Acts of Parliament to be repealed in whole or
part. Your committee recommend therefore that—
When a public bill has been committed to a select
committee, and reported to the house, the bill, as
amended, shall be appointed for consideration on a
future day, when, unless the house shall order the
bill generally, or specially in respect of any parti-
cular clause or clauses thereof, to be recommitted to
a committee of the whole house, after the conside-
ration of the report, the bill may be ordered to be
read a third time.
40. Your committee have not overlooked a pro-
posal made in the other House of Parliament, that
a power should be given by statute, to either House
of Parliament, of suspending (at any stage of pro-
ceeding) bills which shall have been passed by the
other House of Parliament, and of resuming such
bills in the succeeding session at the precise stage
where they had been dropped.
41. The objections to this proposal are grave and
numerous. The power sought would only be exer-
cised with respect to important measures; and this
power of suspension would give increased facilities
for retarding legislation. There is also much
greater facility in altering in a new session the
frame and scope of a measure when it has been
extinguished by prorogation. A bill sent from one
house and suspended in the other could not be
amended during the recess. It must be resumed as
it was left; and all amendments which might then
be introduced could be fully debated in one house
only; for the house to which the amended bill is
retnrned oannot recommit it, but must accept or
reject the amendments proposed. The opportunities
for reconsidering, improving, and amply discussing
important measures would thus be inconveniently
abridged.
42. Moreover, this suspending power in either
House of Parliament, if exercised at its own dis-
cretion, would be at variance with the prerogative
of the Crown. The deliberations of Parliament
may be cut short at any moment by the exercise of
the Royal power of prorogation, which quashes all
proceedings pending at the time, except impeach-
ments by the Commons, writs of error and appeals
before the House of Lords, and trials in progress
before election committees. Every bill must be
renewed after a prorogation, as if it had never been
introduced, though the prorogation be for no more
than a single day. In 1689, Parliament was pro-
rogued from the 21st of October to the 23d, for the
purpose of re-introducing the Bill of Rights, con-
cerning which a difference fatal to its progress had
risen between the two houses.
43. In June, 1610, the Commons established a
rule " that no bill of the same substance be brought
in the same session," and so imperative has this
rule been regarded, that in 1707 Parliament was
prorogued for a week, in order to admit the revival
of a bill which had been rejected by the Lords.
44. If this power of suspending had then existed
in neither of these two cases could the prerogative
of prorogation have been exercised with its salutary
effects ; and the tendency of this new power would
be to give to the house exerting it an equivalent to
the Royal veto in its mild form, when the Sovereign
declares "Le Roi eavisera."
45. But in the bill introduced into the House of
Lords in 1848 there was a provision that the con-
sent of the Crown should be first duly signified to
such suspension. This consent of the Crown to the
mode of dealing with bills not perfected by the
concurrence of the other branches of the Legislature
would be a novelty at variance with constitutional
practice not to be defended by any necessity. The
prerogative of the Crown in all cases where the
rights, interests, and property of the Crown are not
specially affected is limited to assenting to or re-
jecting bills which have passed both houses. It is
barred from all interference during the discussion
of them in either House of Parliament.
46. On the whole, therefore, your committee ad-
here to the opinion expressed by the select com-
mittee in 1848, and which came to the resolution
" that having considered the provisions of the Par-
liamentary Proceedings Adjournment Bill, they do
not think it advisable to recommend it for adoption
by the house."
47. Your committee cannot leave unnoticed an
intimation, which they have received from the Se-
lect Committee of the House of Lords on Public
Business, that they would suggest for adoption by
both houses the three following resolutions :-
Ist. That it is expedient, in certain cases, to adopt
an abridged form of proceeding with reference to
bills which shall be again brought before this
house after having been passed by it, in the imme-
diately preceding session of the same Parliament.
2d. That the bills in respect to which such
abridged form of proceeding may be adopted shall
be, mutatis mutandis, the same bills which this house
may have passed and sent to the other house, and
as to which that house may have resolved that
there did not remain time for their due consideration
in the session in which they were received.
3d. That on a resolution being moved, that it is
expedient again to pass, and to send to the other
house for its concurrence, any such bill, the question
shall be put whether the house will. agree to the
same, and on such resolution being agreed to, the
bill to which it relates shall be forthwith sent to the
other house for its concurrence, without any farther
question being put or any debate allowed.
48, These resolutions are not, indeed, open to the
objection of interference with the prerogative of the
Crown, as they do not contemplate the actual sus-
pension of bills from one session to another, not-
withstanding a prorogation ; nor are they open to
the objection of sanctioning a novel practice as to
the concurrence of the Crown in the mode of deal-
ing with bills in progress through Parliament.
49. But their avowed object is to provide in cer-
tain cases for the resumption, in a new session of
the same Parliament, of bills passed by one house
and not considered by the other, by means of new
and summary forms of proceeding, which they
declare it expedient to adopt.
50. The objections already stated against a statute

for the purpose above-mentioned apply in a great
degree to these resolutions. They, in common with
the statute, would apply only to measures of im-
portance, involving considerable detail ; and it is
extremely improbable that, after an interval of
several months, either house would desire to send
up to the other house measures of this nature
without any amendment.
51. In order, however, to effect this object, if de-
sired, the resolutions, so far as the Commons are
concerned, are not necessary. Whenever it may be
thought desirable promptly to pass, and to send to
the other house for its concurrence, a bill passed in
a former session, but set aside in the Lords, the
Commons may pass the bill rapidly through all its
stages, if they be so minded ; and this course is not
open to the objection of providing fresh opportu-
nities for the postponement of legislation.
52. With regret, therefore, your committee have
come to the conclusion that the three resolutions
suggested by the committee of the House of Lords
cannot be recommended to the Commons for their
adoption.
53. There is a minor point, on which it is under-
stpod a new arrangement might be made by the
Commons, which would be satisfactory to the
Lords. Every bill sent up from the Commons is,
on the motion of the Chairman of Committees, read
a first time, and is ordered to be, printed, as a
matter of course and of courtesy, but no time is ne-
cessarily fixed for the second reading. Bills sent
from the Lords to the Commons are not so treated.
They are not read a first time and printed, unless
some member, who makes the motion, proposes also
a day for the second reading. By a standing order
of the House of Commons, made on the 25th of
June, 1852, when any bill is presented by a mem-
ber in pursuance of an order of this house, or is
brought from the Lords, the questions, " That the
bill be read a first time," and "That it be printed,"
are to be decided without amendment or debate, and
no bill can therefore be read a first time and printed
without such leave obtained. Your committee ap-
prehend that, if the suggested alteration as to bills
brought from the Lords were to be adopted, it
might lead to an alteration of this established
usage of the Commons, which your committee think
would not be txpadient. The Lords are desirous
that bills in the same circumstances should be
treated alike in both houses. But the practice of
the two houses with respect to the introduction of
bills is dissimilar. No member of the House
of Commons can bring in a bill without a vote of
the house, after due notice, permitting its intro-
duction ; and even when leave has been so given,
the first reading is a question to be put from the
chair. It is not expedient, in the opinion of your
committee, to change this established usage of the
Commons ; and some danger of a departure from it
might be incurred by the adoption of the suggested
alteration.
54. It is admitted that within the last few years
the public and private business of the house has
greatly increased. It must be admitted also that
this increase of business has been met by a corres-
ponding diligence and energy on the part of the
house. In the last Session of Parliament, the
hOuse on an average sat nearly nine hours on five
days in each week. The number of days of sitting
was 145 ; the entire number of hours was 1,244 ;
the number of howls after midnight, 147 ; this, too,
independently of the time employed in committees
upstairs both on public and private business. The
number of public acts passed in the last session
was 154. Here there is an immense amount of
business transacted on the whole to the satisfaction
of the public, without any extensive change in the
forms and order of proceedings.
55. Your committee suggest that, except for the
purpose of bringing some important debate to a
conclusion, the house should not sit more than nine
hours out of the 24 on days when the house meets
in the evening, and not more than 11 hours when
the house sits both in the morning and evening.
Your committee believe that this object would be
best secured by a refusal to commence the discus-
sion of opposed business after 1 o'clock in the
morning.
56. It is necessary, however, to be watchful, and
to guard against the broad of new causes of delay.
A practice has arisen of putting questions to mini-
sters, on notice, when no motion is before the
house ; and these questions, and the answers to
them, are confined wihin narrow limits, intended
to be precautions against irregular debate. There
is convenience in this course; but to prevent this
license degenerating .nto abuse it is most impor-
tant that both the questions and answers should be
as concise as possible, and not sustained by reason-
ing, which might give rise to debate. Recourse on
these occasions has bmu sometimes had to the ex-
pedient of moving the adjournment of the house
for the express purpose of opening debate. This
proceeding is to be regarded with the greatest jea-
lousy. It is in reality an abuse of one of the forms
of the house, with the avowed intent of virtually
breaking its essential rules. Your committee have
come to the conclusion that this evil has not reached
the point wherespecial interference by a new stand-
ing order would be expedient. They are disposed
still to rely on the forbearance of members in the
use of forms which respect for ancient usage leaves
unaltered; and the marked disapprobation of a large
majority of the house may check the growth of so
objectionable a practice.
57. Your committee, 1;1.0 prceedtug committees
on the same subject, have passed in review many
suggested alterations, but like them have come to
the conclusion that the old rules and orders, when
carefully considered and narrowly investigated, are
found to be the safeguard of freedom of debate, and
a sure defence against the oppression of overpower-
ing majorities. Extreme caution, therefore, in re-
commending or introducing changes is dictated by
prudence. These rules and orders are the fruit of
long experience; a day may break down the pre-
scription of centuries. It is easy to destroy ; it is
difficult
and toreciofntshte excellence
But if changes be thus
dangerous,
of the existing rules
it is the first duty of
rules inviolate, and to
tbheethhueussceontostmanatilnytariencogthceisseed,
resist every attempt to encroach on them. The
Speaker is their appointed guardian; he is en-
titled to the unanimous support of the House in
his efforts to enforce them, Common consent is
t theirhe b maintenance. Order is
without order freedom of
debateeesetalensedechu
jpreii.etoytm;
despatch of business cannot
for their
dtheir
long exist.

58. It remains only to give a summary of the
recommendations adopted by your committee.
are as follows :
They are four in number
1. That the Committees of Supply and Ways and
Means may be fixed for
, and
every day on which the
house shall meet for the despatch of public business.
2. That on Friday, throtghout the session,
orders of the day shall have the precedence of
notices of motions, the right being reserved to her
Majesty's Ministers of Placing Government orders
on the head of the list.

on 3.Frida That by standing or!ier the house at its rising
y do stand adjourned to the following
should otherwise resolve ;
Monday without question put,
Committees of Supply and
unless the house
provided that, while the
of Ways and Means are
open, the first order of the
day on Friday shall be
either Supply or Ways and Means, and that on
that order being read, the motion shall be made,
"That the Speaker do leave the chair."
4. That when a public bill has been committed
to a select committee, and reported to the house,
the bill, as amended, shall be appointed for con-
sideration on a future day; when, unless the house
shall order the bill generally, or specially in respect
of any particular clause or clauses thereof, to be
recommitted to a committee of the whole house, the
bill, after the consideration of the report, may be
ordered to be read a third time.
April 19, 1861. —______

(From the Times.)
The Select Committee on the Business of the
House of Commons has made its report. Those, if
any, who looked fora comprehensive scheme which
should revolutionise the present mode of managing
disappointed. The recommendations
bo affairs
body
yh ei
Committeeintrusted
bt
ee d
d w
isa
arewith
h he
fewt and simple, as b: :seems a
revisal of usages which
have been imitated by every representative as-
sembly in the world. This is not a time when large
cha'iges would be popah,r, or even possible. When
we take up this report our memory runs back to the
year of turmoil, 1846, when N. Gu:zot, just fallen
from power in France, gave evidence as to the prac-
tice of the Assembly which perished with him. The
opinion of Americans was also taken respecting cer
tarn forms in vogue in Congress at Washington.
But the British Parliament would accept neither
the "cloture" nor the sandglass. For centuries an
English politician had nev.'r been restricted to time,
nor placed at the mercy of his hearers' impatience.
He might talk till the holm adjourned, and the
only deliverence open to the weary listener was to
withdraw. This liberal practice the House of Com-
mons would not abandon on the examp e of foreign
and new-fangled Legislatures. In 1861 it is still
less likely that 'strange customs should be intro-
duced. Since the days we speak of France has
had two new Constitutions, and the American
Ittlaub!ic is no more. The British Parliament
remains not only original, bat unique. It may well
claim to be judged by its fruits, as well as by its
et.erable trunk and spreading branches. Its wcrks
are before the world, and excite wonder by their
quantity as well as their merit. In spite of floods
of talk, which surge yearly higher and higher, in
spite of an increased number of annuals in the
shape of motions, which consume an evening though
they may not command an audience, in spite of the
mass of private bills, which must be considered
with more or less attention, Parliament does man-
age to perform a great deal of work.
The cause of the evil and its remedy have been

often pointed out in thgse celumns. The change in
Parliamentary usage hats laid upon Government the
task of introducing all the important measures of
the session. Of old this was by no means the case.
In fact the very idea of a Government measure is
comparatively modern. In the days when the forms
of procedure in the House of Commons were insti-
tuted the Ministers were administrators, and little
more. They were charged by the King with the
manatement of their several departments, and
legislation was, on the whole, more the work of
the Opposition than of the Ministers. Even up to
our own time private members brought in and car-
ried bills continually, but now a private member
can only hope to pass a measure of his own origi-
nation by_ causing it to be " adopted" by Govern-
ment. When it is fully understood that the mass
of legislation to be accomplished increases yearly,
and also yearly becomes more centralised in the
hands of the Government, the necessity of a change
in the practice of the house is manifest. One of the
hardships which presses on the working members of
the house, and on Ministers especially, is the being
forced to attend hour after hour while the time of
the house is wasted by some independent member
on what is called the " ventilation" of his favourite
idea. The remedy for the evil plainly is; that either
the Government should have a larger number of
days on which to bring forward the business they
have taken in hand, or that when a subject stands
in the list for the day it should not be put off by
preliminary discussions. "It cannot be denied, -
say the committee, " that these multiplied prelimi-
nary motions are a serious obstacle to certainty in
the proceedings of the house, and a cause of much
delay." The committee, however, are naturally
anxious not to curtail that ancient and important
privilege of the Commons—the statement and con-
sideration of grievances before going into Committee
of Supply, and so they make no recommendation to
that effect. But they recommend, first, that the
Committees of Supply and Ways and Means may
be fixed for every day on which the house shall
meet for the despatch of public business ; secondly,
that on Friday Orders of the Day shall have prece-
dence of Notices of Motions, the right being re-
served to the Ministry of placing Government
orders on the head of the list ; thirdly, that the
house at its rising on Friday shall stand adjourned
to Monday, without question put, thus getting
rid of one of the most constantly recurring inter-
ruptions of the week—the debate on the motion
for adjournment; and, fourthly, that Public Bills
which have been referred to a Select Committee
may be read a third time, after being reported,
without being recommitted. The result of these
recommendations will be to give Government three
days a week, certainly not too much for the proper
transaction of the business with which they are
charged;
It requires some philosophy to acquiesce in the
reserve of the Committee on the subject of motions
on going into Committee of Supply. Yet we are
disposed to think that, on the whole, it is better to
leave things as they are, and to trust to the good
sense of the House to prevent the abuse of the
privilege. After all, Parliament is not merely a
legislating body, but also a mouthpiece of the
country; and even the random discussions on
Fridays had their use, in testing the opinions
of the House, drawing declarations of policy from
Ministers, and informing foreign countries of the
public feeling of England. It is undoubtedly tire-
some that important matters, as the Army, the Navy,
and the Revenue, should be delayed by frivolous
discussions. But, on the other hand, there arise
occasionally matters which private members ought
to be able to force on the attention of Government
at the very shortest notice, and no more efficient
means exist for accomplishing this object than a
motion on going into Committee of Supply. If
this power did not exist, a Government might be
able to stave off discussion on an unpleasant subject
during almost an entire Session. The proper jealousy
with which the Executive ought to be regarded
should make us submit to many inconveniences.
We trust, however, that the opinions expressed by
the Committee as to the unreasonable delays inter-
posed by these preliminary discussions will lead
independent members to use their privilege seldom
and briefly.

RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE

METROPOLITAN.
A special general meeting of this company was
held yesterday at the London Tavern to consider
three railway bills as proposed to be introduced into
the House of Commons, having passed the House of
Lords—Mr. J. Parson in the chair.
Mr. Burchell, the solicitor, read the heads ofa bill
to authorise the Metropolitan Railway Company to
make certain improvements in their communication
with the Great Northern Railway and the Metro-
politan Meat Market at Smithfield; to authorise
the purchase of additional lands for purposes con-
nected with that railway; and to authorise arrange-
ments with the Corporation of London and with
certain railway companies.
The CHAIRMAN said he had explained the object
of the bill at the last half-yearly meeting. It was
agreed with the Great Northern Railway that if
they would make what was called the Western or
Hotel branch from their line to the Metropolitan
Railway at King's-cross, the latter company would
make an improved communication from their King's-
cross station to the Great Northern Railway in
Maiden-lane, as it was important that the commu-
nication from the New Cattle-market to the Meat
Market in Smithfield should be as direct as possible.
The cost of the improved junction would be £40,000.
The improved communication froth the Metropoli-
tan Railway in Victoria-street to the Meat Market
in Smithfield was rendered necessary to enable the
Great Western Railway Company to have conveni-
ent access to tbeir large goods depot, which would
be situated under:the market. The cost of this im-
proved communication would be £60,000, making,
with the £40,000, an additional sum of £lOO,OOO,
the raising of which they asked Parliament to sanc-
tion. The Great Northern had expressed a wish
that the Metropolitan would lay down two addi-
tional lines of railway from King's-cross to Far-
ringdon-street. The powers in the bill for purchas-
ing land were large enough to make the four lines,
if it should hereafter be deemed expedient to do so,
and to raise additional capital of £200,000 for that
purpose. He concluded by moving a formal reso•
lution approving the bill.
Mr. AUSTEN seconded the motion.
It reply to questions it was stated that the line
from Farringdon-street to the Great Western at
Paddington would be opened for traffic in the
spring of next year. The new line to the Great
Northern would not be ready by that time. The
directors would not proceed to make the two addi-
tional, lines until the traffic justified it. During
the last fortnight about 400 feet in length of the
Metropolitan line was constructed, and in a couple
of months it was expected that the tunnel from
Coppice-row to Bagnigge-wells-road would be com-
pleted.
The resolution approving the bill was then
unanimously adopted.
The solicitor then read the heads of a bill for ex-
tending the Metropolitan Railway from Smithfield
to Finsbury-circus, to authorize arrangements with
other companies, and to amend Acts relating to the
Metropolitan Railway. Provision was made for
raising a separate capital for this purpose. Five
years were allowed for the completion of the works ;
cases of compensation were to be decided in the
Lord Mayor's Court. A cheap morning train was
to be run from Paddington every working day,
stopping at all the stations, to convey the labouring
classes to the city, and another cheap train for the
same purpose in the evening, the charge to be ld.
for each person for the whole distance. The trains
were to run at such convenient hours as might be
decided on by the Board of Trade. The company
would have power to construct dwellings for their
officers and servants. The capital would be
£500,000, with power to borrow £166,666. In
case this company and the Metropolitan ,Company
should on the average of three years pay dividends
of 7 per cent., then it would be no longer necessary
to keep separate accounts, and the companies would
become amalgamated.

Mr. HARTIIIDGE was anxious that the new com
pang should not entail any loss on the shareholders
of the Metropolitan Company, or involve them in
liabilities. He thought they should have had more
information with regard to the bill, and that the
meeting should be adjourned for a week.
The CHAIRSIAN explained that negotiations were
still pending as to the question of raising the capi-
tal. The Great Western, the Metropolitan, and the
London and Chatham and Dover Companies were
in favour of paying, in certain proportions, a fixed
rent for the use of the extension line and station at
Finsbury, but the Great Northern, who were also
anxious to use the station, preferred paying tolls
according to a certain scale, which would, it was
expected,- be very remunerative; so that three of
the four companies using the line and station would
be owners, and the fourth company would pay tolls
for using it. The Great Northern Company had
agreed to purchase from them three acres in Vic-
toria street for warehouses and goods stations, the
Great Western goods stations were provided for in
Smithfield, there would be a passenger station in
Victoria-street, and the terminal station would be
at Finsbury-pavement. He concluded by moving a
formal resolution approving the bill.
Mr. AUSTEN seconded the motion.
A long discussion ensued, in which Mr. Laurie,
Mr. Hartridge, Mr. Deputy Harrison, Mr. Hales,
Mr. Harris, and Mr. Deputy Bower took part, in
the course of which it was explained that the cost
of the extension and station at Finsbury would be
£600,000, the rent or interest would be £30,000 a
a year, and about one-fourth of that sum, X 7,500 or