The Sun.
London, England, 1864-06-11 00:00:00

made by a select number of its members who ha7r
investigated the evidence adduced before them in
reference to the probable results of sanctioning the
scheme, whereas it will not act upon the opinions
of men perhaps better fitted than its own members
to determine the point at issue. Whether the
assuMption on which this practice is based is one
.
which is reasonable, and whether the practice fee
itself conducive to the interests of the public atlarge, were the points raised by Lord R. Cecil
motion last evening. This is not the first eccaeio
on which the expediency of this singular adjunct of
our legislative system has been brought under Lac
notice of the House of Commons, it having already'
furnished subject-matter for consideration to a
special meeting. The report of this committee waspublished a short time since; and the resolution of
the member for Stamford was ostensibly couched in
accordance with the general tenour of that reports
There are two points of view from which the ma:
ehinery of Parliamentary committees may be re
garden, namely, in reference to its bearing on the
interests of the public, and on those of members of
Parliament. Regarded in the former light, Lord.
R. Cecil condemned the system as failing to attain
the ends for which it was estab!lehed regarded
the latter, he equally disapproved ofit US Imponng
rf
upon private members a great and uent'ceeeb
amount of labour. Dismissing for the mon:ent ti,
consideration of the former class of objections, • t is
unquestionable that of late years private Parliemen
tary business has increased to an extent which ren-
ders the office of member of Parliament something
far different from that easy sinecure which the large
majority of the public believe it to be. Of the busi-
ness transacted in the committee rooms the country
learns nothing, and not a few suppose that se"
tonal duties consist in little else than being pre-
sent in " the House" on the occasion of important
divisions. The first of the objections taken by Lord
It. Cecil to the present system rested upon the
ground that, as the public business of Parliament
was, to say the least of it, of as important a nature.
as that which, for the sake of distinction, is termedprivate, it was indispensable to introduce such modi-
fications as would enable the members of the House
of Commons to discharge the former as well as the
latter class of duties. That, under the existing er:
tem, the public business is neglected, he averred,
was demonstrated by the paucity of the attendance
at the evening sittings of the House, and the in-
creasing frequency of " countseout." To the gocf-
ral modus operandi of Parliamentary committees 'te,
raised those objections which have again and again
been advanced, and which, it must be confessed,
have never been satisfactorily answered. The 113:
competency of the tribunal, the unreasonable cos:
incurred by the proceedings, the manifest interest
which every one professionaliy engaged before such
committees has in protracting the inquiry, and the
wearisome, and not unfrequently irrelevant, nature
of the details elicited, were all in turn cited as fur'
nishing the most cogent reasons for reforming tuw
present mode of investigation by Parliamentary tom'
=tees. The evils, to say the truth, are transparent
enough, and their demonstration was a matter of krl.,°
great difficulty; but unfortunately the remedy v;
which Lord R. Cecil proposed to eradicate them ap'
pears by no means so well calculated to effect the
proposed end as its sanguine originator was willing
to believe. With th© fundamental principle that the
i
House of Commons must in the last resort judge
the expediency or otherwise of sanctioning we
miscellaneous projects which are embodied in pri-
vate bills, Lord R. Cecil did not propose to interfere
he merely suggested that a large mass of the filets
on which, under the present mode of procedure,
Parliamentary committee is called upon to decide'
might be determined by arbitrators or Scientific
witnesses appointed by the promoters of, and o
lectors to, the measure submitted to Parliament'
Although, however, the member for Stamford was
able to cite from experience examples of cases in
which committees had been occupied for days }lO
;
determining facts which might, by the mode-
proposed, have easily and expeditiously been 11
tided, he was unable to give the house any idea f
the manner in which in future those facts should
be left for the decision of arbitrators or experts'
Nor ought the difficulty to have occasioned him
any surprise, if he reflected that a Parliamentary
committee virtually exercises the functions of
jury; that everything submitted for its consideration
is purely a question of fact ; and that it would be
just as impossible to determine beforehand by any
fixed rules what questions a committee should refer
to arbitration as to define what facts a jury
should
take for granted because particular witnesses obese
to depose to them. The question, after all, as .I%!c'
Milner Gibson pointed out, resolves itself into this
Is the subject matter of a railway scheme, or some,
similar project, to be investigated by the House of
Commons or not ? If the latter, then the home
abandoes to some other tribunal its legislative func-
tions, but if the former, then a Parliamentary com-
mittee must itself sift the evidence upon which it
bases its recommendations, Private bill legislation
is simply law-making of an exceptional kind, and
law making must, under all circumstances, be a
laborious task. The legislator cannot consistently
delegate his duties to another. But although a
scheme such as that suggested by Lord It, Cecil
cannot be adopted, mans important reforms maywith ease be effected in the present system.
The
expense attendant on Parliamentary inquiries is a
gross public scandal; and we think that, if some
means were adopted by which the cost of these in-
vestigations was materially diminished, Parliamena
tary agents and counsel would do their work more
expeditiously; and thus much profitless labour
would be saved to those whose duty it is to sit °II
Parliamentary committees.

COUNTRY MARKETS.

LIVERPOOL-FRIDAY.

There was a very poor attendance to-day of the tows
_1 and country trade, and both wheat and flour met
with
~mall business, at Id to 2d per cental and 6d oer barrel an
sack lower on the week. Indian corn met a fair consurnEci
tiveinquiry at 3d per qr decline. Beans were scarce, ai
advanced fully 6d per qr. Barley and peas uncharged
and
d
price, but steady. Oats and oatmeal are both dull, a"
the turn lower.

STAMFORD—FRIDAY.
While wheat, 4es to 44s ; red, 38s to 408 per 36 Etoll_re:
Barl W
ey, malting, 32s to :34s ; grinding, 268 to 2Ss y" re
Oats, ISs to 22a per 24 stone. Beans; old, 34s to 365 r
qr. ; new, 36s to —s.

White wheat new,L4loN..OBtoo4L3sN—BFarnlzenyA,
gY;inding..
2715 to
Red do. 37s to 40s Oats . 258 to ~
Old white
—s".to —8 i Beans ... 388
. .old , .• ..... .0 c,,z,
Red do. —s to —8 Newdo .......... 19s t h"
Barley, rrtniti,
-----g.. • .328 to 34s 1 8ean5,.•neW.......• 348 to 361 i
to 410

WAKEFIELD—FRIDAY. 1 bll6ll'
The wheat trade was dull to-day, with only a rota' ,
ness, factors not being disposed to make any
cession in prices. Beans and oats were rather dearer.
Averages for the week :
Wheat. 2,075 qrs., at 42s aid
_s Od
Rye
..
31s 661,
Barley...• 49
Oats
_s Od Beans ........ .. 34s 3d
Peas .... 100 material con