The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-19 00:00:00

CHESTER' AND HOLYIIEAD RAILWAY EX
TENSION.
_ _

Mr. WARD moved that the evidence taken before the
Committee be printed before the Bill was further pro-
ceeded with.—Agreed to.
REGULATION OF PRIVATE BILLS.

Mr. GREENE said, that in the absence of the Hon.
Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), he begged to move
the order of the day for the adjourned debate on the
question, that it is expedient that the constitution and
practice of all Committees on private Bills, in future
sessions of Parliament, should be assimilated as nearly as
may be to those of Committees on railway Bills; and that
it be an instruction to the Committee of Revision of Stand-
ing Orders, to make provision accordingly. In doing this
he could not but regret that the duty had not fallen into
more able hands. But as he had nine years ago entered
fully into the subject, and as he had participated in the
construction of one of the first reports that had ever
been made, he was anxious to see the recommendation
which had been then thrown out. The House some time
afterwards adopted the principle of placing Members on
the Committee who had no interest in the places
to which private Bills had reference; but it
had not been commonly adopted, and it was now
neeossary that some further regulations should be made.
He did not think that Hon. Members, who were locally
interested in aneePrivate Bills which came before them
in their Committees, should be allowed to vote upon the
decision of such Bills ; and he certainly thought that
some change was needed for in the constitution of the
Committees of the House of Commons.
Mr. BERNAL thought that the motion ought not to
have been brought forward in the absence of the Hon.
Member for Montrose, whose offspring this motion really
was. He was convinced from the enormous increase of
private business annually brought before the House
that a time was not far distant when the House
would completely throw overboard all the private
business, and leave the adjudication of such
subjects entirely in the hands of another tribunal. He
would oppose the motion by every possible mode the
rules of the House afforded.
Sir R. H. INGLIS thought that the principle of con-
ducting the private business ought to partake more of
the nature, and be influenced more by the
principles, f the public business of this House.
In the management of railway Bills there was a great
error committed in placing the business which affected
a local district before a Committee of that House, the
Members of which were completely ignorant of the local
wants of that district. Why, in such a case the decision
depended not so much on the merits of a case as on the
alelities of the counsel. He thought that no reason had
b'een assigned for reversing the decision which the House
had come to on the 20th of January, and he should,
therefore, give his opposition to the motion.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE supported the motion, and
considered that the Hon. Gentlemen who opposed it had
not stated sufficient grounds for its rejection. They
had stated in opposition to it that Members would
he burdened with more work than at present;
but the very contrary would be the case, be-
cause; under the new system, five would often
be enabled to. perform the task now assigned to fifteen.
The present system was bad, because it overworked
Members—(Hear, hear)—but the plan proposed would
make that labour less. As Chairman of the Committee
of Selection, he had found great difficulty in the
selection of Members, but he apprehended that
the plan of his Honourable Friend would remove it.
Tie considered that it was greatly necessary to alter
some part of the present system, and he believed that if
they adopted the plan proposed by the Hon. Member
they would effectatreat public benefit. They would
advance the dispatch of business, and he was quite sure,
at all events, they would consult the convenience of the
Members of the House. (The Hon. Member, owing to
the noise in the House, was but indistinctly heard.)
Mr. BROTHERTON hoped that the House would
pause before it attempted to carry out this resolution.
With regard to the constitution of Committees on former
occasions, he remembered when 60 or 70 Members were
entitled to sit upon the Committee, and were, without
being interested in the question, induced to come and
give their votes. He thought that in those Com-
mittees which sat to decide upon subjects of a
local nature, that local Members ought to be
allowed to sit upon them. He conceived that such a plan
would be much better than the present one, by which
twa or three Members were put upon a railway Com-
mittee when they were actually interested in the passing
of the Bill before them. If they could not use direct
influence, still they would have weight enough with the
chairman to affect the Bill in its clauses. If the pro-
position was open to modification, he should give his
support to it.
Mr. BANKES said he was quite ready to view this
question in respect to the parties more immediately con-
cerned. In that view he was obliged to support the
Hon. Member for Salford. His experience lately on a
Railway Committee, where the want of local information
was severely felt, strengthened his conviction. He be-
lieved the system pursued, in respect to the rail-
ways was, perhaps the best that could be adopted
with regard to them ; but only in regard to them for
the qualification for this tribunal was .ignorance.
Mr. STRUTT begged to remind the House that they
had 'already expressed An opinion on the very subject
which was now under consideration. A motion on it
was made by the Hon. Member for Dumfries, which,
because it was somewhat prematurely brought on, was
negatived by many in the House. No final decision, there-
fore, was given. In reference to what had fallen from the
Hen. Memher about ignorance as a qualification, it
was enoughtfox_himete say that; not ignorance but im-
'l3Mialityjaiafthe-tittillification.val?ch was looked for in
a Committee, as in a jury ; and he thought that was the
more satisfactory principle on which to constitute a
tribunal.
Lord SANDON said he should like that the members
of the Standing Orders Committee should come before
the House instead of being contented with general in-
structions. All questions that were brought before the
Committees were in some degree local ones, and when
the House ordered no locairepresentative should sit upon
that Committee, it practically denied the district to be
affected by the Bill the means of making its opinions
known to Parliament. He hoped the House would pause
before they came to any decision upon the subject. He
was of opinion that local Members should be placed on
these Comtnittees. The rule might have been quite
right to exclude them on railway Bills, but it
did not follow that- they should be excluded
frona Committees on Bills, which were merely local in
their nature ; in-feet, he was of opinion that none but
local Members -should be placed there, and he was per-
reedy convinced that strict justice had ever been done.
—(Laughter.) At all events, place them on the Com-
mittee, do not give a vote if they felt so disposed,
but at least allow them to be present and to be heard.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that he disclaimed altogether
the propriety of considering what might be the conveni-
ence of Members of that House with regard to sitting
upon these Committees. He thought that when
a Member undertook the representation of any place,
he -undertook it under the implied, if not the expressed
condition, that his convenience was to be sacrificed, and
his time devoted to the public service. He could not say'
that it was for the public good, with reference to what
they were then discussing, that local Members
should be excluded..,_,,lse,:- must say that he could
not conceal his opinisin, that it was due to the
interest of the people that, in the discussion of private
business in that House. and which might in different
localities- affect interests of vast importance, the
representatives of those localities should not be alto-
gether excluded. He thought that what his Noble
Friend said was
_roost true with regard to the case of the
Liverpool docks. That was from the Corporation
of Liverpool, and from the Dock Company of Liver-
pool. The rival contending parties alone paid the wit-
nesses and incurred the expenses of fighting a Bill in
which these corporate bodies might not alone be in.
terested. The people at large might not have a pecu-
niary motive to appear by counsel, but they ought
to have some means of having an interest in it by their
Members, by whom they would be represented without
expense. He thought that the question was one which
materially affected the principle upon which the
people were represented.—(Hear, hear.) Ho would
hear it with very much regret that the House
should have surrendered at any time any of these im-
portant functions, the discharge of which is the object of
its existence. At the same time they ought to be pre-
pared to enter upon the consideration of the subject. In
the Committee to which he had alluded the
question was mooted and sustained even by an
authority such as the Hon. Chairman of Committees,
that the local interests should be carefully excluded.
It was considered by the Committee, and they decided
that the local interests should be represented, and that
private 'Members should -be added. He (Sir James
Grahatn) supported that decision. He thought their
attendance was most important; it might be a question
in considering this subject whether their attendance
which at present was voluntary, ought not
to be made" compulsory, and a large proportion
of private Members added. The subject, however,
deserved consideration, and the resolution especiallly
which had been brought before the House, containing
some words of a questionable and almost neutralising
effect. The subject deserved the' consideration
of the Government and of the new Parliament,
when they should'come to deal with the standing orders
in detail. But he was surprised that this resolution
should have been brought forward now, at the last hours
of an expiring Parliament. If it went to a vote, he must
divide against it.

Sir G.—GREY said that when. the motion was brought
forward in the earlier part of the session, he objected to
the alteration so recently made in the matter of railway
business being again so soon changed, but since
that period a Committee had reported upon the subject,
and they almost unanimously supported the resolution
proposed by the Hon. Member for Montrose. They
did not mention any- system to be proposed in its
stead, but they proposed to leave to the Committee
of Standing Orders the details of the question.
To this suggestion he would offer no objection.
Mr. ESTCOVRT said that there was no dis-
inclination on the part of Honourable Members
to
andserebe should
e oli thneot,Cotmhem.reititoerees:.
expectof the House,
-
y
reluctance would be exhibited under th
e that
new an
resolu-
tions. 'lle had
planworked admirably since 1839,
and ho was sure that the extension of it would
not disappoir,t the
tlermxpoetcataltyirs of the House.
This wag the last time
the honour to address that he would have
?Fe he retired into private
life ; he saw the utmost neee
not
.ssz for thtehire
public me,
conveniencel of the INlemaaj:
but es,o
also u ti
tnh,
ewh w
which did
.Alter a few words from Mr, XSTconiirer. ,
not reach the gallery,
Mr. LABOUCHERE said he must sarthat he could
not agree with the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member
for Dorchester, in conceiving that any great constitu-
tional principle was. involved in the question brought
before the House. The only question _for the House to
consider was what was the best way of constituting tin_
partial tribunals for the trial of these private Bills. lie