THE LABOURS OF THE SESSION, August 30, 1848.

[The disorganisation of Parties was at this time complete. The weakness of the Government was equally conspicuous: and the consequence was that very little business was transacted. Sir Charles Wood and his four budgets were long memorable. Mr. Disraeli's opening remarks on the conduct of public business will be found very interesting at the present moment; but this particular speech enjoys a special and superlative distinction above all its fellows: as I am authorised to state that, in Mr. Disraeli's own opinion, it made him leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons.]

MR.

R. SPEAKER,-I take this occasion, as being perhaps the most convenient to the House, to make some observations on the conduct of public business during this session. I think there are reasons which render it not inexpedient that the House should not be prorogued without offering some opinion on that subject. Whatever be the men.ts or demerits of this session of Parliament, there is no doubt that it possesses by general consent one characteristic-that of having been a session of unexampled duration. There is, however, a suspicion very prevalent that its efficacy has not been commensurate with the period of its existence. It is said that after having sat now for nearly ten months, after having laboured with a zeal and an assiduity which have not been questioned, Parliament is about to be prorogued with a vast number of projects of legislation of great interest and value not passed, and many of them little advanced.

Why, Sir, the very subjects recommended to our consideration in the Speech from the Throne have not even been dealt with by the House in the way contemplated when we first met. There is more than one reason generally offered to account for this unsatisfactory state of affairs, for an unsatisfactory state of affairs I am sure every gentleman will agree

it

really is, because it amounts to the acknowledgment, if it be true, of a very great public evil-namely, that our system of government is inadequate to pass those measures that are required for the public welfare. One of the most popular causes which is assigned for this unsatisfactory state of affairs, and for the existence of this great evil, is that there is too much discussion in the House of Commons, too many speeches, too much talk. This is an imputation which has been heard before this session of Parliament. It was not so rife, but yet it was an accusation prevalent during the last session of the last Parliament. I think it was urged as an obstacle to the conduct of public business by the members of the Manchester school, and this year it has been brought forward by their distinguished leader in the most formal and precise manner. That honourable gentleman, the member for the West Riding,' has even acknowledged to the House that, so far as he is concerned, he is so sensible of the evil of prolonged discussions in the House of Commons that he would consent, although opposed to all tariffs, to a sort of rhetorical tariff; and that for his part (and he spoke, I suppose, also for his friends) he has no objection that the time allotted to him for addressing the House should be settled by a standing order.

This is evidently a popular idea, and it may be (but we shall have opportunities of discussing that point) a very good suggestion; but I would remind the House that it is only very recently that this inconvenience of too much discussion has been experienced by the honourable gentleman and the other members of his school. There certainly was a time (not very distant, but a few years ago) when I do not think the honourable member for the West Riding would have been satisfied with a limited period of time being fixed by the House of Commons for the addresses of honourable members. I have listened to a great many able addresses from the honourable member for the West Riding and his friends, most of which exceeded that period of time, which he wishes now to establish; and, far from thinking then that there was too much discussion, they were not satisfied with the House of Commons

Mr. Cobden.

alone, but they built halls, and hired theatres, thinking that the House of Commons did not afford sufficient opportunities for the discussion of those great questions, and for the advancement of those great principles, which they wished to impress on public conviction.

There is another cause alleged for the unsatisfactory state of public business, and that is the forms of this House--the constitution of this House-which are now discovered to be cumbersome and antiquated, and to offer a great obstacle and barrier to the efficient, satisfactory, and speedy transaction of public affairs. This is the view of the case which is, I believe, principally relied on by Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government have on several occasions objected to, or rather deplored, the use of the forms of the House, of which honourable members have availed themselves; and towards the close of this dying session, with the sanction certainly, not to say the instigation, of Her Majesty's Government, a committee was appointed to inquire into the conduct of public business of which I was an humble member, and before which you, Sir, were a distinguished witness.

From the appointment of that committee it is clear that the Government did consider that in the forms of the House might be found the cause of that unsatisfactory state of affairs which we all lament. At the same time it is clear Her Majesty's Government by no means waived their acceptance of the other cause alleged by the honourable member for the West Riding and his friends. The noble lord opposite and the other members of Her Majesty's Government, have, on several occasions, deprecated that propensity to discussion which they have considered to form an obstacle to the transaction of public business. They have often told the House that, if honourable members would not make speeches and inquire into the merits of measures, unquestionably those measures would pass with greater promptitude; and though I look on Her Majesty's Ministers generally as the representatives of the second cause alleged for the evil we all acknowledge-namely, cumbersome and antiquated forms of the House-still they may be considered as having accepted and acknowledged the justice of the other cause

brought forward by the honourable member for the West Riding and his friends-namely, the propensity to overdiscussion too much talk and the consequent waste of time occasioning the delay of public business. I think I have stated the case fairly. I would fix on Her Majesty's Ministers having themselves admitted these two causes as the real ones of the present unsatisfactory state of affairs, particularly as I observe in an official paper a paragraph which seems to ratify the truth of my statement.

Lord John Russell: Is it the London Gazette'?

No, it is not the London Gazette;' but I will show to the House that it is a paper to which are entrusted Government secrets far more interesting and more important than ever appear in the London Gazette.' I copied this official paragraph from what I consider, and I suppose Her Majesty's Ministers would consider, the only official journal of the Government-a journal which circulates all the secrets of the cabinet the moment they are known, which announces all the Government appointments from that of an ambassador to the French Republic to that of the last gauger of Excise. On last Sunday week I read in that journal the following official announcement, which proves that Her Majesty's Ministers, although they have by the appointment of the committee I have mentioned shown themselves to be of opinion that the forms of the House constitute one of the causes of the evil, also believe that the view taken by the honourable member for the West Riding is also just. The paragraph begins:- We have authority to state'--if this is a forgery, it is, of course, competent to the Treasury bench to contradict the statement'We have authority to state that the fish dinner which was fixed for the 19th is postponed till the 26th. This postponement is occasioned by the vexatious discussions in the House of Commons. This mania for talk has now reached such a pitch that something must really be done to arrest the evil. We have, however, authority to state that the fish dinner will positively take place on the 26th.' Saturday, then, was the dinner of the session, and Wednesday is the digestion. How

The Observer.

ever, it is quite clear from that paragraph, allowing for all that irritability which is of course natural to men who lose their dinner, it is quite clear that the real feeling of the Government is, that there is too much discussion in this House. And I, for one, value slight means for obtaining truth like this more than I would any formal announcement even of the noble lord opposite; because it is always at those accidental movements, when men are thrown off their balance-little ebullitions of temper so natural, for instance, on the loss of a dinnerthat you are enabled to detect the secret passion and the master feeling of the soul; and though the noble lord has talked a great deal of the forms of the House, alluding in a way more delicate than the honourable member for the West Riding to the propensity to discussion, it is quite clear that the Government are of opinion that the reason why the business of the country cannot be satisfactorily carried on, is, that there is too much discussion in the House of Commons. I therefore propose, in a manner the most brief and condensed I can command, to discuss whether these two causes are the real causes of the evil which exists, whether it is to be imputed to discussion in this House or to the forms of the Legislature that, after having sat nearly ten months, we have done very little, and that very little not very well.

But before I enter into that inquiry, perhaps it would not be uninteresting to the House, and to the country, that I should state what, independent of our debates, this House of Commons, which it is the fashion to blame at present, has really done; and in doing so I will refer to a short paragraph in the report of the committee on public business, which, though already laid on the table of the House, has accidentally not been circulated among members. It appears from that report that there have been this year forty-five public committees, some of more than usual importance, with an average number of fifteen members serving on each committee. Then there have been twenty-eight election committees, with five members serving on each committee; fourteen groups on Railway Bills, with five members on each group; seventeen groups on private Bills, with five members on each group; and there have been