said, he wished, in consideration of the public anxiety to participate in the coming solemnity at St. Paul's, to ask what number of places had been allotted in the cathedral to the Dean and Chapter during the approaching solemnity?

said, he believed that the mode in which the tickets for St. Paul's had been allotted was this:—that all those who attended the funeral, whether as deputations or otherwise, would have places allotted for them, as, for instance, the Members of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons, Privy Councillors, Knights of the Bath, the Trinity House, and so on. Then there would be accommodation for peeresses, foreigners of distinction, ambassadors, and persons of that class. A certain number of tickets would be allocated to the Horse Guards, for officers who had served under the Duke of Wellington; the same provision had been made for the Ordnance, the Artillery and Engineers, and for the Admiralty and naval officers. The total number of tickets for the different public offices, including a certain number allotted to the Lord Chamberlain, would be upwards of 7,000. Then the Dean and Chapter would have the remainder of the tickets, out of which provision was to be made for the city. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not aware that at the time of Nelson's funeral the whole distribution of tickets was under the care of the Dean and Chapter. It was very different, however, on the present occasion.

said, he was of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman had not completely answered the question put to him: he would therefore beg to ask whether it was true that a large number of seats—something like 3,000—had been reserved for the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's?

said, it was not true that 3,000 seats were reserved for the Dean and Chapter, but 3,000 seats had been reserved for them and the city of London. He might take this opportunity of stating that it was altogether untrue that the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's had made any application for 3,000 or 5,000 tickets—or, indeed, for any number whatever. Looking to what had been done on past occasions, the Government had thought it right to offer the Dean and Chapter a certain number of seats. The Dean and Chapter had offered every possible facility; and he took this public opportunity of saying that their conduct on this important and solemn occasion had been marked by the strongest desire to consult the public convenience and public feeling.

begged to ask the right hon. Secretary of the Home Department whether any communication had been made by the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Government with reference to the present sitting of Convocation, and whether it was intended that it should continue to sit or be prorogued as usual?

said, that as far as he was aware, no communication such as the hon. Member referred to had been made to any Member of the Government; certainly none such had been made to him. In answer to the other branch of the question—namely, whether the Convocation was to be allowed to continue sitting, or to be prorogued as usual, he begged to state that the usual course would be observed, and this was intended from the beginning.

said, he wished to ask the noble Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether any communication had taken place between our Government and the Government of France relative to the equalisation of the duties levied on British coal when imported into the latter country?

said, that the subject to which the hon. Member's question referred was one on which the attention of the Government had for some time past been fixed. The Government was fully aware of the great benefit which would accrue to British interests, and he believed to French interests also, by the establishment of lower rates of duty on British coal imported into France, than those at present enforced; but, under all the circumstances of the case, and considering the nature of our commercial relations with France, it had been thought better not to enter into any negotiations on this subject separately. Communications relative to it had passed between the two Governments, and from those communications it appeared that the Government of France was favourably disposed—as was also the Government of this country—to making considerable modifications in the present international commercial system.

appeared at the bar, and stated that, having presented to Her Majesty the Address of the House in answer to the Speech from the Throne, the Queen had been pleased to make the following gracious reply:—

"I have received with satisfaction your loyal and dutiful Address.

"I rely, with confidence, on your co-operation with Me in My endeavour to prpmote the welfare of all classes of My subjects."

rose, pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to make provision concerning bills of exchange and promissory notes payable in the metropolis on the day appointed for the funeral of the Duke of Wellington. This course was taken in consequence of the representations make, to him by bankers and members of the commercial interest as to the great inconvenience that would arise from having bills of exchange payable on a day when the streets would be filled with the dense crowds that might be expected to assemble on that occasion, and which would render it impossible for persons engaged in business to pass from place to place. The Bill would provide that bills of exchange and notes falling due on the day of the funeral should be payable on the day before. It was evident that this arrangement could not be injurious to the holders of bills, while the only inconvenience which could result to payers would be, that in the event of their not being prepared to take up their acceptances on the day before their funeral, they would incur certain notarial charges on account of the noting of bills, To obviate this inconvenience, he proposed that the payers of bills of exchange should not be liable to notarial charges, provided their bills should be paid by two o'clock on Friday, the day following the funeral.

said, he wished to know whether there was any objection to extending the provisions of the Bill to the whole country? He had reason to know that a wish prevailed generally to have the day of the funeral observed with solemnity throughout the Kingdom.

begged to express the thanks of the commercial public of London to the right hon. Gentleman for having introduced this Bill, and to the House for the disposition which it showed to pass it. The measure was rendered necessary, not so much from a desire to make a holiday of the day appointed for the funeral, as on account of the absolute impossibility of transacting business on that occasion. Whether or not the rest of the country should be placed on the same footing as London on any future similar occasion, was a question which could not now be properly considered; but he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would turn his attention to it.

said, it would be desirable to fix the payment of bills peremptorily for Wednesday; otherwise persons in the country—Manchester, for instance—who had payments to make on Friday dependent on the honouring of hills of exchange in London on Thursday, might be subjected to great inconvenience.

said, in reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles), as to the propriety of extending the operation of the Bill beyond London; that he had considered that point a great deal, and it seemed to him that as the inconvenience to be provided against— namely, the obstruction to business likely to be caused from a dense mass of people, would not extend beyond the metropolis, it was useless to make the measure applicable to the whole country. As to the general question mooted by the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Glyn), it was well worthy of consideration whether it would not be expedient to introduce a general Bill repealing former Acts, and giving the Crown power, by proclamation, to place days devoted to any peculiar solemnity on the same footing—as regarded bills of exchange—as Sundays, Fast days, and Thanksgiving days.

said, that as the Bill provided that a bill of exchange paid before two o'clock on Friday should be subject to no notarial charges, it might be assumed that it would be duly honoured if paid under those circumstances.

said, that the Bill would make hills of exchange due on the 18th presentable and payable on the day before, in the same way as if the 18th wore a Sunday; but, inasmuch as the presenting of bills on the 17th might subject payers to certain notarial charges, it was provided that in the event of their meeting their liabilities by two o'clock on the following Friday those notarial charges should not be enforced.

asked whether it would not be better to make all bills duo on the 18th payable on the day after the funeral?

in reply, said, that the point had been fully considered. All the commercial authorities whom he had consulted strongly recommended that there should be no departure from commercial usages.

rose and said: Mr. Speaker, Sir, The House of Commons is called upon tonight to perform a sorrowful but a noble duty. It has to recognise, in the face of the country and of the civilised world, the loss of the most distinguished of our citizens; and it has to offer to the ashes of the great departed the solemn anguish of a bereaved nation. Sir, the princely personage who has left us was born in an age more fruitful of great events than any other period of recorded time. Of its vast incidents, the most conspicuous were his own deeds—deeds achieved with the smallest means and against the greatest obstacles. He was, therefore, not only a great man, but the greatest man of a great age. Amid the chaos and conflagration which attended the close of the last century there arose one of those beings who seem to be born to master mankind. It is not too much to say that Napoleon combined the imperial ardour of Alexander with the strategy of Hannibal. The kings of the earth fell before his fiery and subtle genius, and at the head of all the Powers of Europe, he denounced destruction against the only land that dared to disobey him and be free. The Providential superintendence of the world seems scarcely ever more manifest than when we recollect the dispensations of our day-—that the same year which gave to France the Emperor Napoleon, produced also for us the Duke of Wellington; that in the same year they should have embraced the same profession; and that, natives of distant islands, they should both have repaired for their military education to that illustrious land which each in his turn was destined to subjugate. During that long struggle for our freedom, our glory—I might say for our existence— Wellesley fought and won fifteen pitched battles—all of them of the highest class— concluding with one of those crowning victories that give a colour and a form to history. During that period that can be said of him which can be said of no other captain—that he captured three thousand cannon from the enemy, and never lost a single gun. But the greatness of his exploits was, perhaps, even surpassed by the difficulties which he had to encounter. For he had to encounter a feeble Government, a factious Opposition, a distrustful people, scandalous allies, and the most powerful enemy in the world. He won victories with starving troops, and he carried on sieges without munitions. And as if to complete the fa- tality which attended him throughout life in this respect, when he had at last succeeded in creating an army worthy of the Roman legions and worthy of himself, this invincible host was broken up on the eve of the greatest conjuncture of his life, and he had to enter the field of Waterloo with raw levies and discomfited allies. But the star of Wellington never paled. He has been called fortunate, but fortune is a divinity which has ever favoured those who are at the same time sagacious and intrepid, inventive and patient. It was his own character that created his career—alike achieved his exploits, and guarded him from every vicissitude; for it was his sublime self-control alone that regulated his lofty fate. Sir, it has been of late years somewhat the fashion to disparage the military character. Forty years of peace have, perhaps, made us somewhat less aware how considerable and how complex are the qualities which go to the formation of a great general. It is not enough that he must be an engineer, a geographer, learned in human nature, and adroit in managing men—he must also be able to fulfil the highest duty of a Minister of State, and then to descend to the humblest office of a commissary and clerk; and he has to display all this knowledge, and to exercise all these duties, at the same time, and under extraordinary circumstances. At every moment he has to think of the eve and of the morrow—of his flank and of his rear. He has to carry with him ammunition, provisions, and hospitals. He has to calculate at the same time the state of the weather and the moral qualities of man; and all these elements that are perpetually changing he has to combine, sometimes under overwhelming heat, and sometimes under overpowering cold—sometimes even amid famine, and often amid the roar of artillery. Behind all these circumstances, too, there is ever present the image of his country, and the dreadful alternative whether that country is to welcome him with laurel or with cypress. Yet this image he must dismiss from his mind; for the general must think—and not only think—he must think with the rapidity of lightning, for on a moment more or less depends the fate of a most beautiful combination, and on a moment more or less depends the question of glory or of shame. Unquestionably, Sir, all this might be done in an ordinary manner, and by an ordinary man, as every day of our lives we see ordinary men who may be successful Ministers of State, successful authors, successful speakers—But to do all this with genius is sublime. Doubtless, to be able to think with vigour, with clearness, and with depth in the recess of the cabinet, is a fine intellectual demonstration; but to think with equal vigour, clearness, and depth amidst bullets, appears the loftiest exercise and the most complete triumph of the human faculties. Sir, when we take into consideration the prolonged and illustrious life of the Duke of Wellington, we are surprised how small a section of that life is occupied by that military career which fills so large a space in history. Only eight years elapsed from Vimiera to Waterloo; and from the date of his first commission to the last cannon-shot which he heard on the field of battle, scarce twenty year3 can be counted. After all his triumphs he was destined for another career; and the greatest and most successful of warriors—if not in the prime, at least in the perfection of manhood— commenced a civil career scarcely less successful, scarcely less splendid, than that military one which will live for ever in the memory of men. He was thrice the Ambassador of his Sovereign at those great historic Congresses that settled the affairs of Europe; twice was he Secretary of State; twice he was Commander-in-Chief of the Forces; once he was Prime Minister of England; and to the last hour of his life he may be said to have laboured for his country. It was only a few months before we lost him that he favoured with his counsel and assistance the present advisers of the Crown respecting that war in the East of which no one could be so competent to judge, and he drew up his views on that subject in a state paper characterised by all his sagacity and experience; and, indeed, when he died he died still the active chieftain of that famous Army to which he has left the tradition of his glory. Sir, there is one passage in the life of the Duke of Wellington which in this place, and on this occasion, I ought not to let pass unnoticed. It is our pride that he was one of ourselves—it is our glory that Sir Arthur Wellesley once sat on these benches. If we view his career in the House of Commons by the tests of success which are applied to common men, his career, although brief, was still distinguished. He entered the Royal Councils and filled high offices of State. But the success of Sir Arthur Wellesley in the House of Commons must not be tested by the fact that he was a Privy Councillor or a Secretary of a Lord Lieutenant. He achieved here a success which the greatest Ministers and the most brilliant orators may never hope to accomplish. That was a great Parliamentary triumph when he rose in his place to receive the thanks of Mr. Speaker for a brilliant victory; and, later still, when at that bar to receive, Sir, from one of your predecessors in memorable words the thanks of a grateful Senate for accumulated triumphs. Sir, there is one source of consolation which I think the people of England possess at this moment under the severe bereavement over which they mourn—It is their intimate acquaintance with the character, and even the person of this great man. There never was a man of such mark who lived so long and so much in the public eye. I will be bound there is not a Gentleman in this House who has not seen him; many there are who have conversed with him; some there are who have touched his hand. His image, his countenance, his manner, his voice are impressed on every memory and sound almost in every ear. In the golden saloon and in the busy market place to the last he might be found. The rising generation among whom he lived will often recall his words of kindness; and the People followed him in the street with that lingering gaze of reverent admiration which seemed never to tire. Who, indeed, can ever forget that venerable and classic head, ripe with time and radiant as it were with glory?

"Stilichonis apex et cognita fulsit

Canities."

To complete all, that we might have a perfect idea of his inward and spiritual nature —that we might understand how this sovereign master of duty fulfilled the manifold offices of his life with unrivalled activity, he himself gave us a collection of military and administrative literature which no age and no country can rival. And, fortunate in all things, Wellington found in his lifetime an historian whose immortal page now ranks with the classics of that land which Wellesley saved. Sir, the Duke of Wellington has left to his country a great legacy—greater even than his fame; he has left to them the contemplation of his character. I will not say of England that he has revived here the sense of duty—that, I trust, was never lost. i But that he has inspired public life with a purer and more masculine tone, I cannot doubt; that he has rebuked by his career restless vanity, and regulated the morbid susceptibility of irregular egotism, is, I think, no exaggerated praise. I do not believe that among all orders of Englishmen, from the highest to the lowest, from those who are called on to incur the most serious responsibilities of office, to those who exercise the humblest duties of our society—I do not believe there is one among us who may not experience moments of doubt and depression, when the image of Wellington will occur to his memory, and he finds in his example support and solace. Although the Duke of Wellington lived so much in the minds and hearts of the people of England—although at the end of his long career he occupied such a prominent position, and filled such august offices, no one seemed to be conscious of what a space he occupied in the thoughts and feelings of his countrymen until he died. The influence of true greatness was never, perhaps, more completely asserted than in his decease. In an age in which the belief in intellectual equality flatters so much our self-complacency, every one suddenly acknowledges that the world has lost its foremost man. In an age of utility, the most busy and the most common-sense people in the world find no vent for their woe, and no representative for their sorrow, but the solemnity of a pageant; and we— who are assembled here for purposes so different—to investigate the sources of the wealth of nations, to busy ourselves in statistical research, to encounter each other in fiscal controversy—we offer to the world the most sublime and touching spectacle that human circumstances can well produce—the spectacle of a Senate mourning a Hero. Sir, I beg leave to move a Resolution—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, humbly to thank Her Majesty for having given directions for a public interment of the mortal remains of his Grace the Duke of. Wellington, in the cathedral church of St. Paul, and to assure Her Majesty of our cordial aid and concurrence in giving to the ceremony a fitting degree of solemnity and importance."

I ask the permission of you, Sir, and the House, to second the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not wish to add a single word to those eloquent terms which have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. I wish only to say that the whole House is, I believe, prepared to unite in offering this testimony of respect to the memory of the late illustrious Duke.

I now beg to move a Resolution—

"That the House will attend at the solemnity of the funeral of Arthur Duke of Wellington in the cathedral of St. Paul on Thursday next."

then moved the appointment of a Select Committee, to "consider the circumstances relating to the attendance of this House and this place at the funeral of Arthur Duke of Wellington in the cathedral church of St. Paul."

in moving for the reappointment of the Select Committee on Indian Territories, said, he would remind the House that a Select Committee was appointed early in the last Session of Parliament upon this important subject. The Government had lost no time in nominating that Committee, in consideration of the near approach of the time when it would be indispensably necessary that some conclusion should be arrived at with regard to the future government of India. He did not anticipate that any objection would be raised to the reappointment of the Committee on the present occasion—for though, in point of form, a new Parliament being now returned, the Motion must be for the appointment of a Committee, yet the Motion would be practically for the reappointment of the Committee which sat in the late Parliament. That Committee had prosecuted its inquiries with continuous application, and with great success. If hon. Gentlemen would take the trouble of looking into the very voluminous report of the evidence taken by that Committee, they would find that it contained a mass of the most useful and valuable information, both oral and written. The inquiry was arranged under six principal heads; and the first of these, and by far the most important—namely, that which concerned the authorities and the agency by which the government of India was conducted at present under the Act now in force—that first and principal portion of the inquiry had been completely exhausted by the Committee which sat in the last Session, and which had reported the whole of the results of their inquiries in that voluminous blue book to which he had already referred. It would be observed, that, in making a very short report prefixed to the evidence, the Committee had adverted to that which he (Mr. Herries) could not refrain from noticing also—he meant the favourable tendency of all the evidence they had collected respecting the governmental agency under the Act which was now in force, that was to say, the government of India by the agency of the East India Company, under the control and subject to the authority of the Crown. He might also state to the House that the remaining topics of the inquiry, which were likewise of great importance, though not of such primary consequence as that to which he had alluded, were, first, the military establishments of India; in the next place, the financial management of that great empire; and, after these, other subjects of great interest relating to the judicial administration, to the educational System, and to the progress of works of internal improvement in India. All these were questions which would require close and serious attention on the part of any Committee that might be appointed with reference to our East Indian territories. And when they should have completed their examination into the judicial, civil, and military administration, and the financial management of the affairs of India, he could not but hope that after receiving the report of the Committee's inquiries, the House would feel itself in a condition to legislate upon the great question, whether the government of that country should continue to be conducted upon the principles of the Act which was now in force—that of the year 1833—or whether any other system should be adopted. He had adverted to this point, because it Was necessary to remind the House that the period within which legislation must take place was now comparatively narrowed. In the year 1854 the Act for the better government of Her Majesty's Indian Territories would cease and determine, unless in the meanwhile it should be the pleasure of Parliament to renew it. It was obvious, therefore, that in the Course of the present Session—and he called the present Session the sitting which would he extended through part of next year—it would he indispensable that some Act should be passed providing for the government of India; and it was for this reason that he moved thus early for the appointment of a Committee. He could not avoid pointing out to the House the fact, that in the course of the late general election they had unfortunately lost some important Members of the Committee, as it stood in the last Session of Parliament; it would be necessary, therefore, that he should do something more on the present occasion than merely nominate the Committee as it existed last Session; and that he should propose some additional names to the Members of that Committee. The total number of the Members of the Committee last year had been fixed at thirty-one; and it was so well attended that he was sure the House would agree with him in thinking that that number was quite sufficient to be assembled for the purpose; for they were aware that there were some subjects which did not attract so full an attendance as others. He thought, then, that a greater number than thirty-one was not desirable on the Committee, and that was the number which he intended to propose. Of these, only twenty-six who had served on the last Committee would be available for the present; and he should, therefore, besides moving the appointment of the Committee, also move that the following five Gentlemen be Members, in the room of the five Gentlemen who were not available—namely, Mr. Macaulay, Mr. E. Ellice, Lord Stanley, Mr. Robert Clive, and Lord Palmerston.

seconded the Motion. He regretted that the East India Company had not shown any intention to bring before the Committee the testimony of educated and intelligent native chiefs and gentlemen as to the feelings and sympathies, the wants and desires, of the natives with re-speot to the government of the Company. However, he trusted advantage Would be taken of the exertions of native societies which had been formed at Bombay and Bengal to collect information on this subject, and that the persons who would be sent over to this country by these societies would be examined before the Committee.

thought that a little more time should have been allowed before appointing a Committee of this importance. Of course there could be no objection to the names proposed by the right hon. Gentleman; but there were interests in connexion with India which required very considerable attention at the present time, for since 1833, when the last Act on the subject had been passed, the aspect of Indian affairs had completely changed. He trusted that one or two Scotch Members might he added to the Committee.

rose to move a Resolution to the effect—"That in the present Session of Parliament no business shall be proceeded with in that House after midnight; and that at Twelve o'clock at night precisely, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any question." He looked upon his Motion as one of considerable importance, and when it was considered that every Legislature in Europe and America conducted their business in the daytime, he thought it most preposterous that the British Legislature should not he content to close its proceedings by Twelve o'clock at night. He trusted he should have the support of the Government on the present occasion, as also the support of the Members of the legal profession, who, when they were obliged to sit late in that House, must find it impossible to attend to their avocations the next morning. As matters now stood, the officers and clerks of the House were sometimes obliged to remain at their posts for fifteen or sixteen hours, and the persons who were connected with the Administration could not pay that full attention to their business which they might do if the House would only close its proceedings at a reasonable hour. It might be objected that inconvenience would arise from adjourning the House always at a fixed hour, as in such case some hon. Members might occasionally speak against time; but on Wednesdays they terminated the sitting at a fixed hour, and that inconvenience had not practically been felt. And even if there should be inconvenience now and then, it would be a less evil than wasting time by debating for two or three hours after midnight whether the debate should be adjourned or not. It might be said, that Members need not stay in the House after midnight, unless they pleased; but some Members wished to discharge their duty conscientiously, and therefore remained so long as the House was sitting. He was convinced that by the adoption of the Resolution, the business of the House would be facilitated; that it would be more favourable to the health of Members, and be more satisfactory to the country.

in seconding the Motion, said, he wished that the proposition was one which would have the effect of assimilating more their business to the course they adopted on Wednesdays. It was stated, by a high authority, that more real practical business was done by that House on the Wednesdays than on any of the other days of the week. He (Mr. Ewart) considered that after twelve o'clock at night, those Members who were really anxious to do their duty might with great reason and propriety protest against proceeding any further with the business of the Legislature. The practice of sitting beyond twelve o'clock was most injurious to the health of the Members generally, especially to that of the Ministers, who had so many other duties to attend to. He had seen Ministers at such a time, while endeavouring to push forward business, actually sinking under the weight of their labour. He believed that the voice of the country was with his hon. Friend in taking this step. The voice of common sense was, at all events, in his favour.

said, he thought the practice of sitting so late at night was most discreditable to that House. Bills of the utmost importance were passed over night without the slightest consideration. Oftentimes were they called upon after midnight to dispose of thirty or forty Orders of the Day, and the consequence was, that measures were hurried through in an imperfect manner, and had to be amended in subsequent Sessions. It might be said that the mass of public business could not be otherwise got through; but every one acquainted with the mode of business in that House was acquainted with the fact that the early part of the Session was consumed in discussion upon Bills that in many cases were never intended to be passed, and in others were withdrawn at the close of the Session. Never had the business been so well conducted as at the close of last Session, when the House sat early. He hoped the Government would give at least a trial to this Motion.

said, the object of his hon. Friend in this Motion was really within his own power, by moving an adjournment after midnight. He thought there were many occasions on which the House would feel the enormous importance of forwarding certain Bills a stage, although it might be after midnight; and he therefore urged his hon. Friend not to press his Motion, but to leave it to the good sense and good taste of hon. Members.

said, the business of the House had very much increased of late years, and the gist of this Motion was to reduce the time they could dedicate to the transaction of it. The proposition of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Brotherton) was really to establish a restriction on debate; it was an extraordinary proposition in a free-trade age and a free-trade House of Commons. The hon. Baronet who had last addressed them, had reminded the hon. Gentleman of his frequent exercise of the salutary privilege of moving the adjournment of the House after midnight, and no doubt on many occasions it had contributed very much to public convenience; but there had been occasions when hon. Gentlemen had made Motions that the debate should terminate, on which an irresistible feeling had been shown on both sides of the House that the termination of the debate under such circumstances would be extremely inexpedient to the public welfare and public business. An iron inflexible rule on the question would be highly inconvenient. The subject had been very much considered in the Committee on Public Business. This restriction in debate was very much like the plan for limiting the duration of a speech, upon which point the Members of the Committee, formed from all parties of the House, came to an almost unanimous opinion, that if such a resolution were adopted, many hon. Gentlemen whom the House did not wish to hear would certainly speak for the hour, while the Gentlemen whom the House wished to speak more than an hour, would be prevented from doing so. As to the sanitary part of the question alluded to, and the reference made to the mode in which the business of the House was car- ried on during the latter part of the Session, he could only say that if a sanitary consideration was alone to influence the hon. Gentlemen who supported the proposition, he did not think that they would persevere in it. It would be totally impossible that the system of meeting at an early hour of the day could be generally acted upon. They were obliged to meet very early every day during the last month of the previous Session for the purpose of hurrying on the dissolution, and of disposing of the important business which it was absolutely essential to transact. They were consequently obliged very frequently to sit for a period of fourteen hours in the day. Now, when hon. Members recollected the arduous duties of the Government, and the necessity of their attending to their offices, as well as in their places in that House, they must admit the impossibility of their continuing for any length of time such a system of prolonged labour. He doubted much whether they would be able to undertake the duties of a Government if such a demand was to be made upon their time. He really thought that the question might be left to the good taste of the House; for he had seen many instances where rigid rules failed to accomplish that which, when left to the good taste and feeling of hon. Members, was successfully achieved. It would be his duty, therefore, to oppose the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, though he readily admitted it was introduced with the best and most commendable intentions.

said, he should support the Motion, for in the opinion of the public the manner in which the business of that House was managed was not consistent with a due regard to the great interests committed to its care. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had ridiculed the idea of hon. Members being compelled to make short speeches, but he (Mr. Hume) was not quite sure that such a regulation would not have a most salutary effect. At all events, he had heard that the adoption of a limitation of the sort, in an assembly in another country, had, after some six or eight months' practice, been attended with very satisfactory results. He thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Brotherton) had acted perfectly right in thus appealing to the good sense of the House, and asking them to adopt some mode by which their late sittings might be abridged. If the plan proposed by his hon. Friend were agreed to as a general rule, leaving extraordinary cases as exceptions, he believed they would soon find that they had got rid of one-half of the obnoxious measures which were now being constantly brought before them. He (Mr. Hume) had been the innovator in the case of the Wednesday sittings, and he thought he should have the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, as well as the great majority of the Members of that House, in favour of that alteration. Adopt the Motion of his hon. Friend, and equally beneficial results would be the consequence.

said, that, however satisfactory the limitation of the sittings of that House might be to the public, and great as the convenience of such an arrangement might be to hon. Members, yet he believed that they would not improve the mode of carrying on the business of the House by merely adopting the Motion under discussion. The House must be aware there was not a legislative assembly in the world which transacted nearly half as much business as the House of Commons did. With regard to the example of the Congress of the United States, it should be remembered that the whole of the local business of the Union was carried on by the several State Legislatures, and, moreover, that as the whole of the Administration formed no part of Congress, therefore there were not in that assembly those debates as to matters of administration which took up so much of the time of this House. Considering then that they had this amount of business to do, he put it to them whether it might not become necessary very much to alter all their other rules in case they agreed to the present proposition. If that was to be the case, let them have the whole scheme to be proposed for a different mode of conducting the business of the House laid before a Committee, and not begin by at once adopting the Motion of the hon. Member for Salford. With regard to reducing the number of stages through which Bills had to pass in that House, let him remind hon. Gentlemen that it was not many years ago that, from the introduction of a Bill to its passing, there were not less than thirty-two questions put. Adopt the proposition now made, and it would probably become necessary to still further reduce the number of questions which were still put—to read a Bill a first and second time, and not go to a third reading at all, or some change of that sort. It appeared to him (Lord J. Russell), that, however large might be the accumulation of Bills at the end of the Session, yet they could not agree to a proposal of this kind without first considering all the consequences which might result from it. He did not say that it was not possible to adopt some scheme by which the increased business of the House might be better transacted; but to accept the Motion of the hon. Member for Salford under present circumstances would, in his opinion, be highly imprudent.

said, he would have supported the Motion if he could have done Be with propriety, because he should be glad to prevent that system of midnight legislation which had sometimes been conducted with such evil effects in that House. But unfortunately the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Brotherton) had overshot the mark in not limiting his Resolution to the introduction of new business. If his hon. Friend would bring forward some Motion by which no new business should be introduced after midnight, unless with the distinct leave of the House, such a proposition as that would come before them with effect; although even that might require some further consideration, as suggested by the noble Lord opposite. Under existing circumstances, it was clear that if they adopted the Motion of the hon. Member for Salford, they would put it in the power of any party in the House to talk any question out. That would be so fatal to their deliberations that he could not give his support to the Motion.

in reply, said, he must express his regret that he could not enlist the leading Members of the House in support of his Motion: the discussion had only tended to show how much more difficult it was to unlearn bad habits than to acquire good ones.