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

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
_le 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 advantage in 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 108 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
I 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
returned cannot 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 Rol s'avisera."
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 itise-xpedient, 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 th 3 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, nzutaijis 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 further
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 objecting already stated against a §tatute

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.
however, to effect this object, if de-
sired,lthe
o resolutions,order,
so far as the Commons are
concerned, are not necessary. Whenever it may be
61.
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-
stood 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-
e rehend 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 Expedient. 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 hours 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 inroad 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 within narrow limits, intended
to be precautions agsinst irregular debate. There
is convenience in this course; but to prevent this
license degenerating into 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 been 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 wnerespecial 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 horse may check the growth of so
objectionable a practice.
57. Your committee, like preceding 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 lulus and orders are the fruit of
long experience; $ day may break down the pre•
scription of centuries. It is easy to destroy; it is
difficult to reconstruct. But if changes be thus
dangerous, and if the excellence of the existing rules
be thus constantly recognised, it is the first duty of
the house to maintain these rules inviolate, and to
resist every attempt to encroach on them. The
Speaker is their appointed guardian ; he is en-
titled' to the unatimous support of the House in
his efforts to enforce then, Common consent is
the best security for their maintenance. Order is
their sole object ; and
, Without order freedom of
debate and prompt aesPatch of business cannot
lone. exist.
A. It remains only to give a summary of the
recommendations adopted
by your committee.
They are four in number, and are as follows ;-
1. That the Committees of Supply and Ways and
Means may be filed for every day on which the
house shall meet f)r the despatch of publicbusiness.
2. That on Friday, throughout 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.
3. That by standing order the house at its rising
on Friday do stand adjourned to the following
Monday without question put, unless the house
should otherwise resolve ; provided that, while the
Committees of Supply and 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 tit'e.
April 19, 1861.

(From flee 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
affairs will be disappointed. The recommendations
of the Committee are few and simple, as be seems a
body intrusted wAli the revisal of usages wnich
have been imitated by every representative as-
sembly in the world. This is not a time when large
chaiges would be popuhr, or even possible. When
we take up this renort our memory runs back to the
turmoil, 1846, when M. Gu'zot, just fallen
from): year of
po
vcerin
France, gave evidcinee as to the prac-
tice of the Assembly which perished with Lira. The
opinion of Americans was also taken respecting cer
fain forms in vogue in Congress at Washington.
But the British Parliament would accept neither
the "cloture" nor the.saudglass. For centuries an
English politician had newr been restricted to time,
nor placed at the mercy of his hearers' impatience.
He might talk till the house 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 example 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
It.public is no more. The British Parliament
remains not only original, but unique. It may well
claim to be judged by its fruits, as well as by its
venerable trunk and spreading branches. Its works
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.
Tile cause of the evil and its remedy have been

---
often pointed out in these columns. The change in
Parliamentary usage has 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
management 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, ho wever, 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. Bat 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, bat '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 matterß, 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 theirKing'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 from 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 their 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. HARTRIDGE was anxious that the new com-
pany should not entail any loss on the shareholders
of theaMetropolitan 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 CHAIRMAN 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
gunl, X 7,500 or
a year, and about ono-fourth of that