On this page

• Text (4)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

  • 

    Untitled Article

  • 

    Untitled Article

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    Sir Benjamin Hall called the attention of the House , on Monday evening , to the _ terge uiraotof talk during the present s ^ iori , andAe | fftldl arnouut of work . He never knew a session bf Parliament , since the passing of the Reform Act , 1 ft which there had been a more anxious desire to get through business . They had now sat for twenty-nvte Jreeks , exclusive of the holidays , and , allowing 100 hours for the Wednesday sittings , for four days ev ^ ry week they had sat during the whole of that session , ten hours and half a day , making altogether 1041 hours . This was as much as could be given to the business of the nation ; indeed it wa 3 more than many of them could

    afford , for they had all duties to perform out of the House , and it was impossible for any one who attended closely to the business of the House to obtain time for despatching any private business , or for purposes of relaxation or enjoyment . But , although they had been so diligent in their attendance , they had not got through so much business as might have been expected . Last year the House sat 932 hours , and the Government passed eighty-nine bills . This year , up to the 9 th of August , they ^ had sat very much longer , and only passed fifty-eight bills ; and this , notwithstanding the prevalence of a greater desire

    to get through with the business . He had moved for a return of the bills brought in during the session , and he now referred to the document for the purpose of showing how they had been disposed of . Ninety-five bills had been brought in by the Government , and of these they had always been able to carry those upon which they had made up their minds , but whenever they had shown themselves careless about any measure , it failed to pass . There * as thb Appointment to Offices Bill . It was brought in on the 9 th of July , was read a second time on the 12 th of July ; the committee was

    postponed five times , and now they did not hear anything of it . The Charitable Trusts Bill was brought in on the 8 th of February , the second reading was deferred eleven times , the committee was deferred thirteen different times ; the number of times it stood as amended to be considered was four times ; the third reading was deferred five times ; and thus a bill brought in on February 8 , lingered till the 25 th of July . The Chief Justices Salaries Bill was brought in on the 11 th of March , was considered in to be considered

    committee on the 25 th , as amended it was deferred eleven times , and no more was heard bf it until the 1 st of August . Very different was the case with the Duke of Cambridge's Annuity Bill , ¦ Which was brought in on the 22 nd of July and ran through its various stages in a few days . In many cases bills were brought in that Ministers never intended to carry through , and then , having been introduced , indecision was shown about them , and after remaining among the orders of the day for almost an indefinite period , they were at length

    struck off . " The Fees ( Court of Chancery ) Bill was brought in on the 25 th of April ; the second reading was deferred three times , the consideration in committee was deferred fourteen times ; and the bill , brought in on the 25 th of April , lingered to the 29 th of July , and then was withdrawn . Now , he said that , in such cases , it was ictter that the Government should not bring in bills at ail , unless they really intended to persevere in carrying them through . ( Hear , hear . ) The Highways Bill was brought in on the 13 th of February ; the committee was deferred no less than thirteen times , and the bill

    lingered on to the 12 th of July , and then was withdrawn . The same thing was the case with the Incorporation of Boroughs Bill . The Landlord and Tenant ( Ireland ) Bill was brought in on the 18 th of February , the second reading was deferred fifteen times , and a single word had not been heard about it since that time down to the 1 st of August , up to which date the return was made . Again , there was the Lord-Lieutenancy Abolition Bill , brought in by the noble lord on the 17 th of May , and read a second time on the 17 th of June . It was almost unanimously agreed to by the House , only thirteen or fourteen members opposing it , and yet three whole nights were taken up in discussing the measure , when the time

    might easily have been much more usefully occupied . Nevertheless , this bill meeting with so little opposition , and which might have "been carried , was withdrawn on the 4 th of July , and thus all the time the House had occupied wae utterly wasted . The Marlborough-house Bill was brought in on the 30 th of July , and it was an instance of how a bill could readily be passed by the Government , when they showed a firm determination to persevere with it ; for there was no doubt it would become law . The Mercantile Marine Bill was brought in on tho 11 th of February , and the second reading was deferred five times ; but without even being read a second time it was withdrawn on the 19 th of April , and another bill was obliced to be introduced after all the discussion

    that had taken place on the first bill . The Merchant Stamen's Fund Bill was brought in on the 11 th of February , and the second reading was deferred no less Hum fifteen times , and members might have come down fifteen different days expecting to discuss this bill ; but at last , after lingering from the 11 th of February , it was withdrawn on the 8 th of Jul Then there was another bill —the Merchants' Shipp same day as the preceding 19 th of April . The next bill in how the Government cou they were deter-]

    mined . He alluded to the * Jf Strobdtitan Interments Bill , with which the Government hiving determined that nothing should interfere , it was of course passed . Then came the Oath of Abjuration ( Jews ) Bill , about which he would say little , because the subject had been so recently debated ) but this bill was . brdught in on the 30 th bi May ; the second reading was deferred four times ; and ( as the House would have a full recollection ) on the 22 nd til July it was withdrawn . " One of the great evils of this state of things was thilt the House hardly ever knew what business was likely to come on at any particular hour , and members came down and were obliged to wait night after Ti _ . ¦ -

    night , in a state of uncertainty as to what questions would be taken . He concluded by urging upon Government to devise some arrangement to afford relief to themselves as well as to the independent members of the House . Lord John Russell said that no other legislative assembly in the world had ever got through such ah amount of business as the House of Commons had performed i Many weeks of discussion were necessarily required by the important legislative questions which that House had regularly to consider , and the time for carrying measures of a

    novel character was thereby materially curtailed . He defended his conduct in introducing and afterwards abandoning certain bills , and declared his opinion that the country had every reason to be satisfied with the conduct of its representatives . He was far from considering that time was necessarily lost because bills were brought in , discussed , and then postponed ; inasmuch as such proceeding furnished the best possible material for future legislation ; and , unless a Government possessed a prophetical power , it certainly could not prevent its measures from incurring such a fate : —

    " The honourable baronet had alluded to the withdrawal of the Court of Chancery Bill , and other bills . Committees were sitting up stairs , which look a view not entirely similar to that of the promoters of the bill , but favourable to different other changes accompanying those proposed by the Government . That being the case , it was desirable and reasonable that those bills should , for the present session , be withdrawn . But he did not consider the time that had been devoted to them was lost . On the contrary , he thought when bills of this kind Were brought forward , and deliberations took place in committee ,

    at length a way was discovered by which objections might be obviated , and the bill be enabled , after due consideration , to pass through Parliament . They had had proofs that bills of this kind often take very considerable time to fit them for becoming law ; and there was an instance to which he had frequently alluded , because he happened once to have had charge of a bill on the subject . It was on the subject of the county courts . He believed nothing was more useful than a local administration of justice , rendering justice cheaper and more accessible . One had only to state such a proposition , and it might be thought a bill to carry out such an object would readily pass through Parliament , and

    receive general assent . But what was the fact ? Lord Spencer , in 1823 or 1824 , at the time when Mr . Canning was the leading Minister of the country , introduced a bill on the subject . It went on , admired and commended by everybody . It was introduced by various Governments , and he ( Lord John Russell ) and his right honourable friend near him had charge of such a bill . Various other persons took up the question : the late Government undertook it , and left a bill for the present Government to carry out when they came into office . And in 1846 , after twenty-three or twenty-four years of discussion , that bill then became law . The honourable baronet would say whether the Government Were to

    blame in not having until 1846 passed such a measure . Perhaps they were so to blame , and it might be that if the honourable baronet were Minister he could provide at once , not only for proper measures to pass , but for all the details at once to be acceptable to all parties , and such as without discussion would receive the assent of this and the other House of Parliament . { A laugh . ) That might be possible , only it had never occurred in his ( Lord John Russell ' s ) memory ; and it seemed that the various able Ministers who had conducted the affairs of this House for many years past had had to encounter delays of the kind he had stated . "

    In conclusion hd remarked that the aptitude for business in the House was not surpassed by any public assembly in the world . Mr . Bright said it certainly was not surpassed for industry . There were two hundred men in that House who had worked harder for the last six months than any two hundred men who could be picked out of any parish in England . He thought , however , that a full House was much too cumbrous a machine for discussing the details of measures . Such details might be referred to a select body of members , while the House itself should discuss principles only .

    " Apart from the business of the House there was the business of committees , and ho had the honour to be one of a committee which had been made the subject of a very severe attack in another place . A noble and learned lord had said that this committee was composed of very ignorant men . They certainly did not pretend to be so learned as the noble and learned lord , but he doubted if it was quite according to Parliamentary order that in another House a committee appointed by the House of Commons should be abused in the manner that that committee had been abused , or its members called ignorant men . The noble and learned lord , it appeared , com * plained that he had not been examined by the committee ; but it was not because he did not ask that he

    was not examined , for he had asked them over and over again to examine him , but because it was the unanimous opinion of the committee that the noble and learned lord could give them no information whatever that they did not already possess . ( Laughter . ) He had already had an encounter with the noble lord ; it was , however a battle of pens , and not of swords ; and he remembered that generally it was the public opinion that he ( Mr had had the best of it did not „ 4 j » -4 ¦ - ¦' ' ¦ •¦ v , i . . . i _ _ m . i *« _

    Bright ) . He , however consider the present matter worth taking up any further ' as he regretted to say that the noble and learned lord , whose eloquence they well remembered , had of late taken a course so eccentric , that he had become not only much ridiculed but even , what was worse , very much pitied . He counselled the noble and learned lord to be more careful of his reputation hereafter , for he said there had been no committee whose labours had met with more approbation from the public press than that to which he had alluded . "

    Mr . Stafford was astonished to hear the member for Manchester talk of dividing the House into sections , when it was already so much divided by party spirit . Who would decide what was the principle and what the details of a bill ? Mr . Bright explained that what he proposed in dividing the House into sections for the consideration of details of bills , was , he believed , carried out to some extent in the United States and in France , where many details were avoided which were inflicted on that House .

    Mr . Hume moved that the evidence taken before the Ceylon committee should be printed . Mr . Hawes , on the part of Lord John Russell , opposed the motion , moving as an amendment that the evidence in question be referred to the Colonial Secretary and the Government . He reminded the House that the committee which took the evidence had decided that it ought not to be published , because it was in a great measure of a private and confidential nature . He agreed in that decision of the committee , although it prevented him from defending the Colonial-office against a variety of unfounded and exaggerated charges that had been brought against it . After a short discussion Mr . Hume withdrew his motion ,

    promising to bring the subject on and to prosecute it to the full extent next session . The amendment was then agreed to . The House of Lords having gone into committee , on Tuesday * on the Friendly Societies Bill , Lord Redebdalb objected to the portion Of the bill sanctioning the use of secret signs , and proposed an amendment to abolish the use of secret signs or pass-words . Lord Beaumont opposed the amendment as fatal to the principle of the bill . The pass-words and signs were merely used as a protection , and it was impossible

    that the societies could carry out their objects without them . They had no objection whatever to allow the Government and the police authorities to know the sighs and pass-words , but it was impossible that a member , when travelling through the country in search of work , could obtain assistance from local societies if he was not prepared to furnish them with the pass-word . After a few words from Lord Monteaolb the amendment was withdrawn , the bill then passed through committee , was read a third time and passed .

    Lord Monteaglb detailed the circumstances connected with the subscription of false signatures to the petition against the Liverpool Corporation Waterworks Bill , and concluded by moving resolutions which declared Mr . C . Green and Mr . M . A . Gage , the presenters of the petition , had been guilty of a gross breach of privilege . The Lord Chancellor and Lord Beaumont supported the resolutions , which were carried unanimously . After some conversation , Mr . Green and Mr . Gage were called in , and asked if they had anything to say in explanation or extenuation of their conduct . The former declared his innocence , and asked to be heard by

    counsel and witnesses , which , however , was refused . He then entered into an exculpatory statement , the gist of which was that there was a very short time in which to get up the petition , and that the fictitious signatures were not discovered until within thirtysix hours of the time at which it was necessary to present it . Mr . Gage also defended himself , and said that the charge was the result of a deep-laid conspiracy in Liverpool in order to defeat the petition . On the motion of the Lord Chancellor , a fortnight ' s imprisonment was inflicted for this breach of privilege , and they were both handed over to the custody of the Black Rod to be removed to Newgate .

    The Earl of Rodbn put a question to Ministers as to certain alleged religious persecutions of Protestant ministers and others in Ireland . The Marquis ot Lansdowne attributed the origin of the disputes to which the noble earl had called attention to persons who , no doubt actuated by great zeal , had endeavoured to give the religion which they professed what was called in Scotland an " aggressive" character among a population the majority of whom were opposed to their views . Every effort had been and would continue to be made by the Government to repress outrage . In the House of Lords , on Wednesday , Lord Campbell , referring to the report of the commissioners appointed to enquire into the operation of

    Untitled Article

    482 1 Ki > e & * & **?? [ Saturday , - — — - —^^———^——— ^^— - ^ ~ -

    Untitled Article

    PARLIAMENT .

    Untitled Article

    y . of n « urhjr > tbtL ^ umo character ing BM—Wdttgrm fn \ ftnUhe ineasi ^ rfWjl ^ hilr **« tLai £ ftft ! A % s ^ O ) Bt ^ th | t sJfkqrf fAnjta / OT ^ ast ^ mjnraure thtoUBirVhenever yu ^ t' ^ i ^ m Xsszn . ^ - ' -w NS ^ Uiif V V II of nmurby tbtL ^ umc charade ng BM—WoVgTrtl fn \ ftnUte sa pasui ^ , rMU ^ uhrtrMwy , iif . Crfc 1 11 . / W ^ nFjthilt sJttJWv ajLai uldniasr ^ meTaure thtowtlfYr rK ^ te- ; vCi Vc ^ MJiJSsj ^

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), Aug. 17, 1850, page 482, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1850/page/2/