The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-15 00:00:00

ary at the close of the session to reconsider the standing

orders with a view to their improvement, availing themselves

of the experience of the session. There were no less than 505
private bills this session to be decided during the session,

and it was impossible to get through them in the com-
mittees of the House of Commons so as to
en able them to be dealt with in the other house
in. time. Of course they had as much right in the House

of Lords to have their standing orders adhered to as they
had in this house in regard to private business. It had

been proposed to have a tribunal external to this house to
deal with the facts of any private bills, and to have the

merits considered by a committee of the house. He did
_ _

not feel, when this proposition was made, that he could
accede to it. A proposal had also been made
to reduce the number of members of committees to two.

He was also opposed to that proposal, because he thought
it would disturb public confidence in the decisions of com-
mittees. He thought it would be advisable to have the

number of committees reduced from five to four, and to
give the chairman a double vote in cases of difficulty.
Sir J. SHELLE Y said he thought more time should be
given to consider this question. He gave notice that to-

morrow he would move that the hon. baronet, the member
for Eversham (Sir H. Willoughby), and the hon. and learned

member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr Ayrton) be added to

the committee.
Sir L. PALK drew attention to the unnecessary number
of witnesses that were called to prove a particular point,

notwithstanding the intimation of the committee that they
were satisfied with reference to that point. The reply vir-

tually of counsel was that the committee would take the
conduct of the bills into their hands. He thought that
this subject should be one of the subjects on which the
committee proposed should decide.
After P. , ome remarks from Sir J, FERGITSSON and Mr
AYRTON,
Mr M. GIB SON said he thought this question should
be referred to the select committee of standing orders.
Mr HODGSON and Mr WHALLEY made a few observa-
tions.

Lord STANLEY advocated the subject being referred to
a select committee, and he considered that reducing the

number of members of a committee to three would give the
members greater responsibility, and be attended with benefit.
There was no necessity for any new regulation relative to
the admission of a number of witnesses to particular points,
as that power was vested in committees. He contended

that the real remedy to meet an evil which was manifest in
regard to private bill legislation, was to extend the hours in

the day on which committees sat, which at present were

about three hours and a half.

Lord, E. HOWARD drew attention to the hardships
inflic ced in certain districts by bills being promoted for
railways which it was never intended to construct, but
which were intended merely to embarrass landed proprietors
in the neighbourhood.

Lord R. CECIL said that a committee of the house
should have the power to impose costs in the event of
frivolous objections being made to an undertaking.
Mr MASSEY agreed with the noble lord (Lord R. Cecil)
as regarded the infliction of costs, and he thought the ex-
periment by the hon. and gallant member (Col. W. Patten)
was entitled to an experiment, although he saw serious dif-
ficulties in dealing with the subject. He thought the house
should have sufficient confidence in the standing orders
committee to allow the subject to be referred to that tribunal,
in order that a national scheme might be agreed on, which
from the zeal and intelligence of this committee might be
expected to obtain the sanction of the house.
Mr SOTHERN ESTCOURT wished his name to be
withdrawn from the committee, which was agreed to.