The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-29 00:00:00

0 0 i 25'

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, June 28.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.
Messer!, ers from the Commons brought up sever.sl
BillF, which were read a first time.
CLERGY OFFENCES BILL.
This Bill went through Committee pro former, to enablo
the Bishop of London to introduce several amended
clauses.
PRIVATE BILLS AND BUSINESS OF THE
HOUSE.

Lord BROUGHAM, in rising to bring before the
House the motion of which he had given notice, said he
felt that he was not premature in introducing the subject
to this House. It was well known to their Lordships
that latterly the private business of the House had
increased to an enormous amount, and in order to
facilitate the progress of that business it was indispensa-
bly necessary that some change should be made in the
mode of conducting it. After referring to those who
held the effice of receivers and " friars," and to the
alterations which had been made in their duties from
time to time, be proceeded to say that although these
offices had become almost obsolete from being delegated
to others, persons had been appointed to fill
them even at the commencement of the present
session. Twenty years ago he introduced a measure
into the other House of Parliament for the purpose of
simplifying the private business of that House,-
and great good arose from it; but as the
private business of their Lordships had now in-
creased to an almost incredible extent, he thought
their Lordships would agree with him, that some
further alterations were now necessary. In the courts of
law the proceedings were not taken without chart and
compass, and the chances of misdecision and corruption
were more guarded against than:in the decisions of the
House of Parliament. The amounts recovered in them
did not generally relate to large sums of money, but to
exceedingly small sums. For instance, when he attended
the Spring Assizes of Lancaster in 1827, he found that
out of two hundred cases tried there in fourteen days
the average amounts recovered did not exceed 131. 15s.
These .courts, nevertheless, tried cases of the utmost im-
portance to the great mass of the people; they pre-
vented whole neighbourhoods from being de-
stroyed ,by the rapacity of powerful or tyrannical
individuals ; they prevented the poor from be-
ing wronged without an appeal to a jury
of their countrymen, and prevented an innocent man,
charged with crime, from being punished from motives
of revenge—in fact, the entrance of evil through any
chink or cranny was far more guarded against in the
courts of law than in the proceedings of their Lordships'
House. Why had their Lordships confidence in the judges
of the land? Why, because their Lordships knew that
they possessed great professional skill; because they
were far removed from the common affairs and strifes
of life, and even abstained from taking a part in the
political proceedings of the nation. Why, then, should
not their Lordships trust them with the power of adju-
dicating in certain matters connected with the private
business of their Lordships' House, and bearing directly
upon the sacred rights of private property?—(Elear.)
It was a course which had long been recommended by
Committees of their Lordships' House, and he confessed
he could see no reason why such Bills as those which
relate to canals, railways, and roads, should not be re-
ferred to a tribunal of this sort. The very constitution
of the other House of Parliament precluded it from
always acting with the strict impartiality of judges; or
rather, he should say, its Committees from always
acting with the impartiality of judges, who had placed
between them and the suitors a brazen wall of incor-
ruptibility. The Members of the House of Commons
could not help being influenced by their constituents
upon questions relating to local Bills; and if it were
only upon that ground alone, private business ought to
be removed from their jurisdiction. Nothing could
by possibility prevent a member of a Private Committee
of the House seeing his constituency. He represented
them, and they had it in their power to give him advice
and information which might influence his decision upon
matters which ought to be dealt with according to the
evidence and testimony which might be brought before
him in the usual formal manner. Again, Members of
the other House of Parliament might bring about parti-
cular results by mutual arrangements. For instance,
the liember for Yorkshire might be appointed to consider
a Bill connected with Cornwall, and the Member for
Cornwall might, on the other hand, be selected to ad-
judicate on the Bill relating to Yorkshire. The two
Hon. Members, therefore, were those placed in a po-
sition to influence the decision of each other, and by
means of a mutual understanding between two, the
views and wishes of the circumstances of Yorkshire and
Cornwall were carried into effect. Referring, however,
these private Bills to judges, appointed by the
Crown for that especial purpose, would ob-
viate all these objections ; and what reason
was there why that course should not be
adopted. The few Members of the House of Commons
who formed the private Committees, had to adjudicate
upon the evidence of witnesses, and the statement of
counsel, without themselves being learned in the law.
The various counsel, therefore, who appeared before
them, often found no difficulty in misleading them upon
points of law ; and very often their decisions, if not
opposed to reason and common sense, were en-
tirely at variance with the justice and equity
of the case upon which they had to adjudicate.
All this required to be carefully and fully considered ;
he, however, did not then intend to propose any remedy.
The great proportion of Private Bills consisted of Rail-
way Bills. There were 400 before them last year, and
nearly 300 during the present session, and as the country
had not yet " been covered with a net work of railways,"
they might look forward to a considerable number of new
Bills in the ensuing session; for instance, the existing
companies would seek powers to sketch out branches, to
connect them with other lines in all directions;
but he wished an improved supervision to be exer-
cised over all Private Bills, and not exclusively
over railway Bills, because the same imperfect system
was pursued with respect to all. What he complained
of was that a Railway Committee was not responsible for
its actions. Cases had occurred in which Bills had
been passed by Noble Lords or Hon. Members who,
although members of the Committee, had absented
themselves until the Committee came to the vote. He
did not wish, however, to exclude legal gentlemen from
blame in these proceedings, as many of them took
ten briefs in as many Committees (Hear,
hear)—so that it was quite impossible that one
barrister could discharge his duty properly even to
one company. Sir William Follett, for instance, fre-
quently received briefs when the parties knew that he
could not attend, and he was only retained because the
other side might not receive his services ; but where a
counsel received an enormous fee for the express purpose
of securing his attendance, and did not attend, such an
act met with his entire disapproval.—(Hear, hear.)
He did not believe that this was done when it
was stated to him, and he did not believe it now.
Then again persons intimately connected with railways
were, in all directions, seeking to get into Parliament,
as appeared from the number of advertisements which
appeared in the newspapers from gentlemen connected
with railways, and those railway men would, when they
got into Parliament, lose sight of the interests of the
public in their anxiety to promote their own interests,
their closely serried ranks would be invulnerable against
the voice of the public, the grossest jobs would continue
to be perpetrated, and in everything connected with
railways they would follow their leaders like sheep.
The conferences with the other House, the mode
of sending Bills to and receiving them from the other
House, and many other minor details of the business of
the House, required amendment. He had felt it his
duty to bring the subject before the House, and be
begged in conclusion, to move that a Select Committee
be appointed to inquire into the mode of conducting the
private business of the House, and for the purpose of
suggesting, a remedy.
Lord REDESDALE did not object to the appoint-
ment of the Committee, but he considered that, at that
late period of the session, and from the great
demand for the Noble Lord's time on other Committees
no good could ari e from its appointment.—(Hear, hear.)
The Noble Lord was not correct in stating that Com-
mittees in that or the other House of Parliament were
appointed by arrangements amongst the Members, as
they invariably consisted of M embers who had no in-
terest in the Bills which they were called upon to
investigate. He feared, however, that the plan of
the Noble Lord would not remedy the present sys-
tem. He was ready, however, to admit that evils
had grown up in the mode of adjudicating
private Bills, but he considered that the best mode of
remedying them would be by revising the standing orders
of their Lordship's House.—(Hear.) The recommenda-
tions to the Committee appointed to consider the desira-
bility of suspending the further progress of railway Bills
this session advised that Committee to consider the ex-
pediency of revising these orders. He confessed that he
could not agree in all the decisions arrived at by that
Committee, but he doubted much whether a better
tribunal could be devised. It should not, he thought, go
forth to the public that they had no confidence in the
Committees of their Lordship's House.
The Duke of RICHMOND advised the Noble Lord
to withdraw his motion, as it could lead to no practical
result during this present session. At the same time,
he was prepared to admit that the standing orders were
defective in many respects, and :that they required re-
modelling, which, he conceived, could be done early in
the ensuing session.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE agreed with the
suggestions of the Noble Duke and Noble Lord that the
Noble and Learned Lord should withdraw his motion.
Inconveniences had, no doubt, arisen in the mode of
legislating upon Railway Bills, and their attention should
be directed as to the best mode in which they could be
remedied. In saying this, however, he wished to pay a
deserved tribute to the Committees of Selection, who
had performed their duties in the most satisfactory
manner. No doubt the review of the standing orders
referred to would remedy the defects in their legislation
with respect to private Bills, of which the Noble
and Learned Lord had complained, the new railway
board was, in his estimation, a great step in this direc-
tion. During the short Limo it had been established, no
less than 70 or 80 reports on the financial condition of the
companies had been presented to Parliament; and many
tnsptctions of lines had taken place. The question of
whether a new tribunal (independent of Parliament,
whose decision should not be final), should be appointed
for the purpose of dealing with Railway Bills, would re-
ceive the attention of the Government, but by careful
watchinc. he apprehended that .evils might be avoided.
Lord BROUGHAM said, after what had been said by
Noble Lords, he would withdraw his motion.
The motion was accordingly withdrawn.
LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
IRISH CONSTABULARY.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented returns
on this subject.
BISHOPRIC OF MANCHESTER BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and gassed.