The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-14 00:00:00

accede to it. A . proposal had also been made
to reduce the numb, it of members of committees to two.
He was also opposeel to that proposal, because he thought
it would disturb pub lie confidence in the decisions of com-
mittees. He thoug' at it would be advisable to have the
number of commits ces 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 th it; question. He gave notice that to-
morrow he would n love that the hon. baronet, the member
for E versham (Sir I. Willoughby), and the hon. and learned
member for the TOV :er Hamlets (Mr Ayrton) be added to
the committee.

Sir L. PALK dre' at attention to the unnecessary number
of witnesses that wec:e 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 bide into their hands. He thought that
this subject should be one of the subjects on which the
committee propcsed should decide,
After some remarks from Sir J, FERGUSON and Mr
A.YRTON, _ _ _

Mr N. GIBSON said he thought this question should
be referred to the select committee of standing orders.
.Mr HODGSON and Mr WHALLEY made a few observe-

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 manites, 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
inflicted in certain districts by bills being promoted for
railways which it was never intended to construct, but
which were intended merely to embarrass lanled 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
ftivolous objections being made to an undertaking.
Mr MASSEY atr,reed 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 agroed to.
PRIVATE BILL REFEREES.

On the motion of Col, W. PATTEN, that it was expe
dient that referees should be constituted under the autho-
rity of this house for the more speedy and econo-
mical decision of certain questions of fact com-
monly arising in the proceedings upon private bills,
the resolution was ordered to be an instruwion to the
Standing Orders Commitee.
CAPTAIN DE BURGH.