The Sun.
London, England, 1836-03-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, MARCH 24, 1856,

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARce23.
The SPEAKER took the Chair a few minutes to Four
o'Clock.
A Messenger appeared at the Bar with the Annual Re-
turns of the Commissioners under the General Turnpike
Road Act.

_
LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS.
The LORD ADVOCATE brought up the Report of
the Committee on the Leith Harbour and Docks Bill,
and brought in a Bill for making a Harbour and Docks at
Leith. . ___

SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY.
Sir A. L. HAY presented a petition from the Mayor
and Town Council of Hythe, in favour of the South Eastern
Railway.

PRIVATE COMMITTEES.
The HON. BARONET had now to bring under the con-
sideration of the House a circumstance, which, it appeared

to him, required to be immediately adjudicated, more espe-
cially in a Session where so much private business was be-
fore the House. He alluded to the division that had
taken place to-day in a Private Committee on the Trinity
Harbour Bill. Counsel having been beard on the question
of adjournment, came to a division. He (Sir A. L. Hay)
having been Chairman of that Committee, appointed tellers
on each side, and then having quitted the Chair he had
voted against the adjournment of the Committee. On the
tellers having taken the numbers, there were found to be
five on each side, including himself (Colonel Leith
Hay). He then considered that he had a right to give
a casting vote, as Chairman, but was informed that he
had no right to do so. The authority of Sherwin and an-
other was in favour of the opinion, that the Chairman
could give a casting vote as well as his individual vote.
The House would agree with him that that was a question
which ought to be decided—(Hear, hear)—and the prac-
tice, when once established, should be strictly adhered
to. It was the duty of the House to decide what the
course should be on all other occasions, ius:ead of al-
lowing the Committees in each Session to make regu-
lations which would be over-ruled in the next. If it
had been merely a private Bill, and that the adjourn-
ment did not interfere with the object of the projectors,
lie should not have preised the matter further, and
would have allowed it to rest there.—(Hear, hear.)
But it appeared to him to have a very different construc-
tion. The question submited to the House was discussed
in the Committee and involved an adjournment of at least
eight weeks, as it extended to the 16th of May—they
wishing to wait until they had the decision of one of the
Courts in Scotland. The question he had to submit
to the House was, had the Committee a right
from the usage of the House on the practice
of private Committees to have an adjournment for
such a length of time. He found by referring to the Re-
ports, that in the session of 1805, in the case of the Com-
mittee on the Camberwell and South Lambeth Water-
works' Bill, they adjourned for a considerable time, and
were ordered by the House to meet again and proceed.
—( Hear, hear.) Again, in the session 1825, in the case
of the Bucks and Herts Canal, the Committee also
adjourned and were ordered to re-assemble ; and in 1835,
in the case of the Medway Navigation, the Committee there
adjourned sine die, and were ordered to meet again and
proceed with the business referred to them. He, under those
circumstances had to move that the Committee on the
Trinity Harbour Bill be instructed to re-assemble, and pro-
ceed with the consideration of the Bill.
Sir G. CLERK wished to say a word upon the question,
as he was one of those Members who had been upon the
Committee, and had taken a different view of the
question from the Honourable and Gallant Member.
He was surprised at the existence of any doubt on the sub-
ject, for he had never heard the tight of a Chairman to a
second vote put forward before. There were other opinions
of equal weight with those of Mr. Sherwin—there was
the opinion of Mr. Dwarris, who said the Chairman
of a Committee was placed in the same situation as the
Speaker of the Ilouse.—(Hear.) In the case of Election
Committees, where the Members sat as a jury, the power
was expressly given to the Chairman to give a casting
vots, in the absence of a Member and the votes being equal.
Now, if the general law had been such as laid down by Mr.,
Sherwin, it would be perfectly unnecessary to introduce
st:c't a clause ; but according to the opinion of all other.
writers on this subject, the Chairman of the Committee
was precisely in Ilia same situation as the Speaker. He
begged leave to state that in the early period of the history
of Parliament a doubt existed as to the right of the
Speaker to give two votes, one as a member, and another
as casting vote ; for he found in 1661, upon a division, the
number being noes 106, ayes 105. The ayes knowing which
way the Speaker's mind leaned, called upon him for his
casting vote ; upon this being objected to. the ayes
said that they had, by the Queen's pleasure, been allowed
to elect a Speaker, and that he had the right
to give the casting vote. The Speaker and Sir Walter
Raleigh were of opinion that he could not do so. With
regard to the other question as to expense, he thought that
great expense would be spared by adjourning to the time
the Committee had done. He trusted, therefore, that the
House would rest satisfied with the decision of the Com-
mittee.
Mr. DUNCOMBE thought that that which had been
referred to by the Right Hon. Gentleman was very much
in favour of the decision of the Committee. The Chair-
man of a Committee, by Act of Parliament, bad a right
conferred on him to give a casting vote.—(Cries of " No,
no r) In the Glasgow Election that had been done.
The Noble Lord then voted as an individual Member of
the Committee, and the parties being then equal, he gave
his casting vote in favour of the sitting Member:—
(Hear.) There were two points before the House, viz.—, ?
whether Sir A. L. Hay had a right to give two votes
and supposing that to be decided against him, whether
the Committee had a right to adjourn to the 16th
of May ? He thought that the better way would
be to decide first as to the power of the Chairman to give
two votes, as if he had that power the other question would
not arise.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir C. BURRELL said that the simple question was,
who was to take the votes, if the Chairman left the
Chair ?—(Hear, hear, hear.) He had never known
the Chairman to leave the chair for the purpose of voting,
except when the parties were upon an equality. He
thought that under all the circumstances they could not
take a better example than that by which the Speaker was
guided in the divisions in that House.
Sir J. GRAHAM, though his experience was not so
great as that of many Members whom he saw present,
could confidently state that during the period he had sat in
that House, 18 years, he had never seen a Chairman
leave the Chair for the purpose of giving his vote.
It was very desirable that, as the Honourable
Member for Finsbury recommended, they should decide
these two points separately. It was desirable in the first
place to settle the point of practice.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
As the Hon. Member fer Surrey had sat so very long in
that House, and had very great experience in Committees,
he would appeal to him to state what the 'practice had
been.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. DENNISON concurred in the observations which
had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet opposite ; and as he
had been appealed to by him, he did not hesitate in stating
that he did not recollect an instance where the Chairman
left the Chair for the purpose of voting, and he considered
that the only case in which he had a casting vote was where
the numbers on both sides were equal. That was the custom
which he had always seen observed.
The SPEAKER expressed his opinion to the same
effect.
After some further conversation, in the course of which
Sir J. GRAHAM intimated that he should hereafter call
the special attention of the House to the subject, the motion
for the revival of the Committee was agreed to.
Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition from the Me-
chanics' Institution, praying that the law of patents might
bmA eioesvmrierebvf
joei sr.r e
Ngdava. —SNR,
gave
l(oenOcoTttr
idTcceeEro emtsdh ttti ot
otyenlie
ptt
hrooee nsi
inquire
tultiehiedr e toaiafnbpt leAoet
petition
hri
oi
nTI hhfereo should
hH .
subject.
o
u de
licensed victuallers of Lymington against the present spirit
duty.
Mr. DUGDALE presented a petition from Birmingham
in favour of poor laws for Ireland.
Sir A. AGNEW presented a petition from Derby (we
believe) against Sunday dealing.
Sir A. L. HAY presented a petition from certain attor-
neys against the Attorneys' Bill.
On the motion of Captain PEC HELL, returns were
ordered relative to prisons situated in such towns as are
not boroughs.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD presented a petition from Bir-
mingham, praying that inquiry might be made into the
working of the negro apprenticeship system in the colonies.
Mr. WALLACE presented a petition, signed by 3.50
individuals, tenants of the Hon. and Gallant Member op-
posite (Colonel Bruen). The petitioners expressed the
highest approbation both of the public and private character
of that Hon. Gentleman—(Cheers)—and their total dis-
sent from, and disapprobation of, a petition presented against
him some time back, and signed, among others, by Mr.
Vigors. They felt assured that if inquiry should be insti-
tuted into the conduct of the lion. and Gallant 1\ 'ember
(Colonel Bruen) the result would be most favourable to
him. Coming from his own tenants, nothing could be more
satisfactory. He had no means of ascertaing the truth,
but having presented petitions on the other side it was but
justice that lie should present this also. As the former
petitions in this case were printed, he should move that this
also be printed. The same Hon. Member presented a pe-
tition from John Alexander, Esq., a gentleman of the same
county. He upon a former occasion presented a petition
impugning the character of Mr. Alexander. He prayed