The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-30 00:00:00

THE ORWELL.

The Earl of MALMESBURY asked the noble earl the
Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he could inform him
what instructions had been sent to Sir J. Hudson relative
to the seizure of the Orwell by the GaribaldianVolunteers?
Lord WODEHOUSE said one letter had been received
from Sir J. Hudson on the subject of the compensation for
the seizure of the vessel ; but the noble lord was under-
stood to say negotiations were still going on.
THE COURTS OF JUSTICE BILL.
A discussion took place on this bill.
The Earl of DERBY said he hoped their lordships would
not pledge themselves to choosing tke site for the new courts
of law till they were quite certain the plan would be carried

out.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, before any active
steps were taken in this matter, two things would have to
be done in the next session of Parliament. The first was
the money would have to be voted ; and if that money was
tio be taken out of the suitors' fund, that would also have to

be dealt with by Parliament.

The subject then dropped.
APPROPRIATION OF SEATS (SUDBURY AND

ST. ALBANS) BILL.
Earl GRANVILLE moved that their lordship.s go into
committee on this bill, which proposed to appropriate the
seats in the following manner :—One to South Lancashire,
two to the West Riding of Yorkshire, and one to Birken-

head.
Lord STRATHEDEN said, I move that the bill' be
referred to a select committee. I regret that I .e,ltnn?
catch the arguments of the noble earl who has ji;u4 Mit
down, but I would remind their lordships that the' sip
porters of the Government, and indeed the Government
itself, are not in any way committed to this measure. The
motion for referring the bill to a select committee may be
viewed either as intended simply to arrest it, or as implying
that its details are in want of such an agency to sift them.
In both these lights it is defensible. If viewed in the first
light the lateness of the session is not an argument against
it, but an argument inlfavour of it. The lateness of the
session would prevent a select committee from reporting.
But the lateness of the session renders the committee of the
whole house utterly inoperative. In point of fact it is un-
warrantable to proceed with such a bill at such a moment.
The standing order of the house year by year has given a
formal voice to the legitimate opinion that, after July 25th,
measures ought not to proceed without reasons urgent and
exceptional, and such as, in this case, are well known to be
wanting. It is true that it was read a second time on the
19th. But it was read pro forma only. It now comes be-
fore us for the first time to be discussed, If the opinion
which used to be embodied in the standing order, and which
still prevails, although from temporary circumstances it has
not this year been embodied in it—arrested ordinary bills,
how much more ought it to arrest a plan which, as it alters
the Reform Act, must influence the dignity, prosperity,
and future legislation of the country. It is unjust
to ask noble lords who, from February last, have pa..
tiently attended the business of the house, to compro-
mise their health, to waste their powers, and even sacrifice
their duties, by remaining in town a day after July is
ended. And yet unless the bill is hurried, against all de-
cency and precedent, the day after it is first discussed into a
law, it must run into August. What is the result? That,
to the loss of the community, and to the injury of the house
itself, it goes, without consideration and discussion, to the
statute-book. For who can venture to discuss it? If any
one, a year ago, had given notice to submit the question to
the house, of hope these seats should be appropriated; if long
before that time he had formed opinions on the subject ; if he
saw the present bill to be impolitic, and felt an obligation to
examine it, in what position would he stand ? He would have
to choose between the fatal evil of addressing an impatient
house and the yet more serious calamity of allowing what
he saw to be a legislative error pass unexposed and un-
questioned to the statute-book. Although no member of
the house would shrink from any task which duty urges
on him, the Government are not entitled to place men in
such a difficulty unless necessity controls them. But does
it in this instance? In the other House of Parliament the
bill was read a second time on the 25th February. It
went into committee on the 11th June. Was such an in-
terval inevitable ? It reaches, this house on July the 11th,
and now, upon the 29th, we are beginning to debate it. Was
that interval inevitable. But, setting that aside, is this bill
forced on at this late period by some popular opinion it
would n't be prudent to resist or disappoint ? It is well
known that it has not any popular opinion to support it,