The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-08 00:00:00

PRIVATE • BILLS.

A LETTER TO THE RIGHT HON. SIR JOHN PAKINGTON,
CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON PARLIAMENTARY
BUSINESS.

Albany, February 23rd, 1854.
It seems to be agreed by members of the committee,
that nothing in our order of reference debars us from
considering what is technically called " private busi-
ness"--to the state of which I desire, accordingly, to
invite attention.

Nothing is confessedly more irregular or unsatisfac-
tory than the manner in which private bills are debated
in the house. Very few members think it worth while
to attend at the early hour of from 3.45 to 4.30, except
members connected with the Government, members who
may have petitions to present, and members who come
down expressly to vote on a private bill, because they
have some personal or local interest in it. Thus a jury is
formed, (for the proceeding is in its nature judicial),
fluctuating in point of numbers,—not selected, but taken
at random,—composed in part of the very last persons
who ought to be admissable as jurors, and composed
more largely of such persons in proportion as the hate-
re,,t excited by the case under trial is greater.
But these are not the only objections to the present
system. Whether from the comparative unimportance of
the matters under discussirm to those great national ques-
tions which engage us at a later hour, or from the fact
that most of those present are there only by accident, and
waiting for other business, or from the sense of indi-
vidual irresponsibility created by the presence and parti-
cipation of a considerable number of persons, it is quite
certain that no subjects are so hastily decided upon, or
with so little real examination of their merits, as private
bilis.

On a railroad or election committee, no one is allowed
to vote who has not heard all the evidence, no matter
how trivial or tedious agreat part of such evidence maybe.
On the second reading of a private bill, members drop in
at the close of the debate, or when the division-bell is
rung, trusting to chance to enlighten them as to the
vote which they shall give, or willing to follow the
judgment of any friend whom they may see. It is quite
matter of accident (depending chiefly on the import-
ance of the public business which is to follow) whether
a private bill be rejected or read by. fifty votes, or by
three hundred. If the discussion upon it lasts three
quarters of an hour, at a time when the house is filling,
it is probable that one-half of those who vote will not
bave heard the grounds on which it was introduced, or
those on which it is opposed. Even in the case of mem-
bers present, how much impatience is usually exhibited
when any speaker attempts to enter into a detailed
explanation of his reasons for voting I iYet private
bills turn almost entirely on questions of detail ;
which ought to be a reason for debating them
more carefully than any others. Where a leading po-
litical principle is involved, a discussion may be con-
ducted with great ability, yet scarcely influence a single
vote, for on such questions men's minds are supposed to
be made up. But there can exist no such pre judgement
in the case of a canal, a waterwork, or a railway—all
turns on the facts—yet these facts are neither suffered
to be stated at length, nor much attended to by a large
proportion of those who hear them.
I have repeatedly heard members of all opinions and
parties lament the existence of this system. Some, whom
I know, invariably vote for the second reading of every
private bill, irrespective of its merits, avowed on ,the
ground that the House of Commons is not a fit tribunal for
its consideration, and that the bill ought to be referredto
the select Committee, by whom, if objectionable, it.will be
rejected. But this mode of proceedure involves a heavy
expenditure to the opponents of the bill, and allows any bill
however absurd, to receive the apparent sanction of the
house.

My objection to our method of dealing with private
bills may be summed up thus :
The proceeding is rather prejudicial than legislative,
and is nevertheless conducted with an entire departure
from judicial forms.
The tribunal before which it takes place is uncertain
in numbers, and irregular in attendance ; its mem-
bers are indifferent for the most part to the matter
in hand, and do not act under any sense of personal
judicial responsibility. I have known members vote
in ignorance, not only of the merits of the case, but of
the very name and purport of the bill which they were
helping to carry or to throw out.
It follows that there is no real security either fer
good bill being allowed to go to a committg,e, or for a
bad one being stopped.
Can these things be amended ?
I content myself with indicating a grievance, and do
not attempt to point out the precise remedy. Yet it
would seem practicable to institute a preliminary en-
quiry into the merits of every private bill brought be-
fore us, to be conducted by a select or standing com-
mittee of a few members, or by an officer or officers of
the house, whose report should be laid before the house
previous to the second reading. Such enquiry to ex-
tend no farther than to the prima facie case, and to
guide only, not control, the decision of the house, which
however would almost certainly follow that already come
to by an impartial and accurate scrutineer. It
would be understood that the result of such enquiry
would go no further, if favoUrable, than to affirm that
in the bill as proposed there was nothing manifestly con-
trary to public policy, or to the precedent of the house,
or to the rights of private parties, upon the showing of
the promoters. If any of these objections were
raised, then the report to be accompanied by a
statement of its nature. In this way some re-
sponsibility would be taken off our hands, and some
expense saved to opponents, by unfair or imprac-
ticable projects being checked in the outset. lam
tar from thinking the remedy perfect ; I suggest ii
only ; and I rather desire to call attention to an abuse,
than aspire to cure it.—l remain, yours truly,
Right hon. Sir J. Paekington, M.P.

STANLEY.

(From the Times.)

While the minds of men are keenly alive to the even-
..nalities of the war in which this country is to all intents
and purposes already involved, and nothing but a languid
attention can be secured even for great measures of in-
ternal reform, is it possible to say a few words with
effect on the method in which private business is con-
ducted in Parliament ? The subject is of vital import-
ance, and of daily interest to all persons whose fortunes
may be compromised by the course of Parliamentary
legislation. Now, however true it may be that the
moment is an ill chosen one for raising a discussion
which might touch all the susceptibilities of party feeling,
or even imperil the stability of a Government charged
with the serious responsibility of conducting our warlike
operations to a successful conclusion, the same objec-
tions cannot apply to the consideration of a question in-
volving no such amount of conviction or of prejudice on
either side. On the contrary, it would appear that there
is a peCuliar fitness in the present season for placing the
conduct of private business upon a footing satisfactory to
petitioners and to the public. Do what we will, men will
look for some time with far keener interest to news from
the seat of war than to the minutes of domestic controversy.
Attention is stretched, not occupied. The question then is,
if we cannot utilise the time and ability of hon. gentle-
men in the intervals between the reception of the last
and the coming bulletin ? The time is peculiarly fit for
securing reform in certain minor matters ; minor, be-
cause each of them do not specifically bear upon the
interests of all, which would certainly be neglected as
soon as public business shall have once more fallen into
its usual channel. Time out of mind, private business
has been conducted in the most slovenly manner, but
the voice of remonstrance has been either faintly raised,
or absolutely drowned amid the universal and noisier
acclaim for onward progress in public matters. Is it
necessary for us to say that the importance of business
which is denominated "private" really makes no dif-
ference in the disposition of the house ? Year, after
year since the conclusion of the last general war in
which this, country was involved, private bills have
been passed vvhibh have operated upon an enormous pro-
portion of the existing property of the country, but these
bills have been hustled through the house with less at-
tention than would have been best Owed upon the trial of
an urchin at quarter sessions for filching a parcel of
linen from a hedge, or abstracting a couple of fowls from
before a farmer's barn door. Few people are aware of
the manner in which such matters are dealt with in the
House of Commons. The absence of publicity insures
the continuance of the abuse. We may venture to sug-
gest as evidence—if such were needed—of the enormous
benefits whioh the country has derived from the labours
of the daily press, the difference which exists between
the manner in which the public and the private business
of the country is conducted. In the one case an accu-
rate report of the proceedings is laid every morning upon
the breakfast table of every person who feels an interest
in the matter—in the other no record is forthcoming in
a. popular form of the course of Parliamentary business.
A letter has been forwarded to us upon this subject,
written by Lord Stanley to Sir John Pakington, in which
the modus operandi in such cases is very clearly and
sufficiently set forth. The writer, as we shall do—con-
tents himself with stating the abuse. The remedy is
best left for the present to the discretion of the house
and the public spirit of the members. Private bills are
brought in and read a second time, before reference to
committee, between the hours of 3.45 and 4.30 p.m. At
that hour few members are in attendance, or, if there
should be a gathering of the house. it is just because
hon. gentlemen are in a frame of mind which would ren-
der every subject irksome but the all-absorbing one which
stands for discussion immediately the private business
has been shelved. In ordinary cases the house at the
hour named is formed of a few members of Government,
of a few members who may have petitions to rkesent,
and of the few members immediately interested in the
bill. Thus, as the writer of the letter truly re-
marks, " a jury is formed, fluctuating in point
of numbers not selected, but taken at random,
composed in part of the very last persons who ought to
be admissible as jurors, and composed more largely of
such persons in proportion as the interest excited by the
case under trial is greater." In ordinary cases most of
the members who run in when the division bell is rung
have heard nothing of the discussion, and care nothing
about the arguments on either side. They either give their
vote at the suggestion of a friend, or at least upon the
inspiration of the first person who will give them a hur-
ried notion of the merits of the case. In many cases,
it is said that hon. gentlemen make it a point of voting,
at all events, for the second reading, because they are
of opinion that every private bill should have a chance,
and that it is the duty of the committee to whom the
bill may ultimately be referred to relieve the general
body of the house from its judicial functions. Who
shall say that this course of proceeding is unadvised ?
But, at the same time that it appears necessitated
by the course of business, it would also seem to in-
dicate the form of the remedy to be applied. If a
select committee is substantially invested in the end
with the judicial powers of the house, and all proceed-
ings beyond those which take place before them, and
under their auspices, be really mere form and solemnity,