and to officers of the House. All the advantages and more of an afternoon sitting would, it seems, be secured by dividing an evening sitting into two acts. The House would then meet at the usual hour of four, Government business being appointed to be taken up to nine o'clock, and that of private members from after that hour. The number of hours sitting would remain the same, but the risk of a count-out, which so often occurs when the House is expected to reassemble at nine after an interval of two hours, would be materially diminished. The uses and abuses of the unduly privileged motions for the adjournment of the debate,' and the adjournment of the House,' imperatively call for reform. More disputes arise upon the somewhat hazy rules of order connected with them than upon any other questions. The motion to adjourn the House, made as an original motion, is a ready instrument by which any man who has found a mare's nest, or has an unseasonable crotchet to air, can intercept the business of the evening. Taken in combination, these two motions are the tools by which a worn-out contest may be indefinitely prolonged by a factious minority, or a wrangle reduced to one of those boyish trials of obstinacy or of physical endurance, which tend to bring Parliament into ridicule and disrepute. Common sense prescribes that the discussion on each of these motions should be strictly confined to reasons for and against the proposed adjournment. The very natural suggestion has been made that if a motion for the adjournment of the debate has been made and negatived, the House should be bound by its own decision to dispose of the matter in debate in the then sitting. The answer has been that in an assembly of which a very small proportion constitutes a quorum, and where the numbers in attendance fluctuate so greatly from hour to hour, such a power would lead to conspiracies and surprises. The objection would be obviated and the desired result in a measure secured by a rule providing that if the motion were once negatived by a preponderating majority, such as two to one or five to two, then the decision should hold final; even then a locus poenitentiæ might be kept open by a reservation that if subsequently to such a decision it should appear to be the pleasure,' i.e., the unanimous consent, of the House to adjourn the debate, that course should be admissible.

Another hope of expediting business lies in the possibility of delivering the House of Commons from some portion of its labours, and to this its attention should be earnestly addressed. In an article entitled The Private Business of Parliament,' which appeared in this Review at the commencement of the

year 1867, we enumerated a long catalogue of matters formerly the direct subjects of legislation, which had gradually been altogether or almost eliminated from Parliament and intrusted to commissioners or other officials. We at the same time made divers suggestions for dispensing with the necessity of private bill legislation in some matters, and simplifying and abridging it in regard to the remainder. Several of these suggestions we have since had the satisfaction of seeing adopted by Parliament. The House of Commons has, at the same time, with great advantage to itself and to the parties concerned, transferred the trial of election petitions from its own body to the judges of the land. Still the pressure upon the time and attention of Parliament for the discharge of duties which are rather judicial or mediatorial in their character than legislative, is overwhelming. One hundred and seventeen public Acts were passed last Session; but the number of private Acts was not far short of double that number. In the last eight years, the Royal Assent has been given to upwards of 2,000 such measures, while the number proposed for the consideration of the legislature may be reckoned at 3,000. Surely the time has come when a greater effort than has yet been made should be attempted to relieve Parliament from these onerous duties, to the discharge of which it is but imperfectly adapted. Two reasons point to this conclusion. One is the growing pressure of other and more important senatorial business; the other is, that experience has greatly modified men's ideas as to the importance of public works, more especially of railways, and in regard to the compulsory purchase of private property for their execution. The expropriation of private owners for such purposes is no longer the battle-field of gods and of giants, of territorial magnates and leviathan speculators fighting as if for existence; it has rather become a matter of arbitration as to terms between parties, all of whom are desirous of seeing the enterprise carried out.

We think, then, that the time has come when private bill legislation may be altogether put an end to. Bearing, however, in mind the just jealousy which the public feel respecting the concession to private persons or to companies of extraordinary powers, privileges, or monopolies, we hold that an ultimate control or appeal must be reserved to Parliament. If anyone for a moment doubts this, let him call to mind the excitement that has within the last few months prevailed with respect to tramways, and that which raged a very few years since on the subject of the supply of gas to the Metropolis. Nor is there any security that the public interest in a subject

which has long slept may not be suddenly revived. The settlement of inclosures was many years ago transferred to a body of commissioners, subject only to a final approval by Parliament of their proposals, an approval which had become almost a formality, till some proceedings of the commissioners drew attention to the course they were pursuing; and thereupon their conduct, and the policy they administered, became the subject of severe criticism, and evoked in several instances the corrective action of Parliament.

We suggest that promoters of undertakings, and all persons or local bodies seeking powers or privileges, should be required to proceed only by provisional order, or rather by certificate, as under the Railway Construction Facilities Act of 1864, and no longer by private bill. Application for such order or certificate should be made to a permanent tribunal appropriately constituted for this purpose, and so composed as to command the highest degree of weight and respect. The sittings and inquiries of this tribunal should be held in the Metropolis, in Edinburgh, in Dublin, or in the locality concerned, or partly in one and partly in the other, according to circumstances. All its proceedings should be public and carried on in open court. It should be affiliated to, or en rapport with, some official department, probably the new Local Government Board, whose chief would be looked to to answer questions and give information respecting its proceedings to Parliament. The order and certificate applied for, whether approved or disapproved by the tribunal, should be laid upon the table of each House successively for a given number of days: the decision of the tribunal, if not appealed against within that time, would become final. If appealed against, the case would, if the House saw fit, be sent for a rehearing to a Parliamentary tribunal. This Parliamentary tribunal should be a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons, constituted and conducted as recommended by the Report of the Joint Committee of both Houses named at the head of this article. The certificate, approved, amended, or disapproved by this court of appeal, would be again laid upon the table of each House in succession; and, unless either House made some especial order thereon, would, after a given number of days, if approved, acquire force of law; if disapproved, be lost for the Session.

It is eminently desirable that Parliament should, with a view to the despatch of business and to the maintenance of its own character, earnestly address itself to the double task of amending its machinery and relieving itself of any functions which it can find other bodies as well or better qualified to undertake.

It is, however, good government, not an annual deluge of sensational measures, which the country desires at the hands of its rulers. It is not quantity, but quality in legislation, which it seeks. We trust the Ministry will have learnt the lessons of the past Session. If next year sees the several departments of State satisfactorily administered, a reduction of taxation, a Scotch Education Act, the licensing question settled on fair terms, a Mines Regulation and a Ballot Bill passed, there will be little ground for complaint, and the Administration may not only regain but add to its former popularity. We have freely criticised the recent conduct of affairs by the leaders of the Liberal party. It is more agreeable to render tribute, as we can most sincerely, to their earnestness, courage, and determination-virtues which our countrymen have ever highly honoured and appreciated in public men. They displayed these qualities in persevering with their plan of Army Reform against the influences of power, rank, and wealth, although the popular tide had turned and left them almost stranded; they displayed them in a still higher degree in not shrinking from unpopularity and reproach, and sturdily refusing to yield to the temptation of entering upon the downward course of casting the burdens of the present upon the future: they displayed them further in their firm attitude on the Ballot Bill, and their readiness to encounter the labours of an autumn Session rather than surrender the measure. We hope they will be not less firmly exerted in refusing to dally with the unreasonable demands of Irish agitation, against which we rejoice to see that Mr. Gladstone has on a recent occasion taken so deliberate a stand. When the passions and disappointments engendered by the Parliamentary struggles shall have subsided, the Session will be judged and remembered, not by its failures, but by its successes. It will, we trust, be remembered as the Session which saw the foundations of a system of military defence, adapted to modern exigencies and to the habits of this people, laid deep and strong; which saw the Universities wrested from a Church, and rendered up to the nation; which saw the elector's right to record his vote unchallenged and unmolested, formally recognised and virtually secured. It will be remembered as the Session which saw a settlement initiated by English statesmen bidding fair to inaugurate a new era of international policy, receive the approving verdict of the British Parliament and of the representatives of the American people. When the results of the Session shall have come to be fairly and impartially judged, so likewise will the course of Mr. Gladstone's Government. The judgment pronounced will, we believe, be

that their conduct in persevering with their military and financial policy, notwithstanding its temporary unpopularity, was patriotic and statesmanlike.

It has been the distinguishing glory and good fortune of this country that it has, on the whole, been ruled by sober reason, and not by popular impulses or the instinct of a blind and stubborn Conservatism. To the Liberal party this glory especially attaches, for it has swayed the destinies of the country during an epoch of unparalleled greatness and prosperity. Occasions have not been wanting when reason appeared in imminent danger of being overruled by the humour and clamour of the day, or baffled by the inert resistance of stolid prejudice and ignorance. There has, however, hitherto been always found amongst us such a fund of sober common sense that the reflecting portion of the community has, in the long run, never lost its prevalence over the unreasoning or the impulsive. To this it is due that the political course of the country has been uniform and steady; that we have in all our changes escaped the sudden shocks and oscillations to and fro to which more short-sighted or more passionate nations have been subjected, and that, in a long career of progress, there has been no reversal of, and no attempt or desire to reverse, any step once taken in advance. That which we have witnessed during the late Session has been in the main one more passing phase of an oft-repeated struggle. Calm reason and the impulse of the hour found themselves in conflict; the latter prompted ease and present indulgence, the former counselled exertion and self-denial. The contest has been once more decided in the manner most creditable to the character of the nation and most conducive to the stability and welfare of the Empire.

No. CCLXXV. will be published in January, 1872.