The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-23 00:00:00

With regard to Committees on Private Bills, did th ?AIL
Member for Derby come to the House to move for the ap-
pointment of a Committee on a petition on a Frivate Bill ?
The Hon. Member did not submit a motion to the House.
He did not gtvp notice that on a given day he should move for
the appointment of a Committee on a petition on a Private
Bill. He came to the House and directed that the standinf
order shall be read, then nominated the Committee, and thaa
nomination was entered on the journals. The samat st.iag
curred with regard to himself when the standing order wee ;4
be appointed. He did not come to the House and give notice
of a motion, that the Committee on a standing order should be
appointed, but he came to the House and required that stand-
ing orders 3 or 4 should be read, and when they were read, he,
nominated the Members to constitute the Standing Orders'
Committee. With regard to the Committee of Selection, he
was aware that at the beginning of last session there was an
entry on the Journals that the Committee of Selection was ap-
pointed, or was to be appointed, but he considered that that
entry was not regular; and en consulting the highest authority
he could consult on the subject this sessions, his apprehension
was confirmed by those authorities, viz.—that it was not ne-
cessary to enter the appointment of these Committees, if they
were appointed according to the proper construction °
the standing orders. He contended that the nomination of
these Committees ought to be found in the journals of the
House. All Committees were appointed by the standing
orders, and nothing more was necessary than to call out and
nominate the Member, and then turn to standing order 4,
and the entry made there. The appointment of the Com-
mittee was by the standing orders, but the nomination of the
Member was not by the House. At the same time that the
Committee was appointed, the Members were nominated, gene-
rally being the chairman of the standing orders, and the chair'
men of the Committees and Sub-Committees on petitions on
Private Bills, and of whom three should be a quorum. He
considered that the appointment of the Committee was good.
With regard to their being no entry of the appointment of such
Committee, it was wholly unnecessary that there should be
such an entry upon the journals of the House, the Committee
being constituted in accordance with the standing orders.
It did not appear to him that the Hon. Gen leman had rested
his objection on any other ground than informality, and he
trusted he had shown that the appointment was sufficient, and
thas there had been no deficiency whatever in the forms which
had been followed. He did not think that any grounds what-
ever,,,r had been shown for the interference of the House. He
trusted, therefore, the House would see that the construction
be put upon the case was the correct one, and he hoped that it
would not take the view of the Hon. Member (Mr. O'Connell)
but would support the Committee of Selection.
Mr. WARBURTON thought the question should be con-
sidered totally irrespective of the case of Mr. Smith O'Brien.
The question for them to consider simply was whether the
Committee of Selection was appointed or not. If the construc-
tion of the Hon, Member for Oxford be the true one,
the language would not have been " that a Committee be ap-
pointed at the commencement of every session ;" the lan-
guage would rather have been, " That the chairman of the
Select Committee on standing orders, and the chairmen of
the Sub-Committees on petitions for private Bills be a Com-
mittee for such and such purposes." That clearly would have
been the language of the standing order, had it been the in-
tention of the House that the sessional order should be con-
tinued in the sense taken of it by the Hon. Member for Ox-
ford. But who had appointed this Committee? It was quite
clear that some one must have appointed it. The Committee
could not appoint itself. The Speaker, he believed, had not
appointed it, and again he must ask who had appointed the
Committee ? He thought it better that they should confess
at once that there had been some negligence shown some-
where or other, or that some misinterpretation of the words of
the standing order had taken place, and, therefore, the sooner:
they returned to the reading of the Act, the sooner would
they do justice to the Hon. Member, and to that House itself.
Sir GEORGE GREY said that, in his opinion, the words
of the statute were to be interpretated in precisely a similar way
with the wording of other private Bills, and the House had
sanctioned by many precedents this view of the case. He
found, in reference to the nomination of Committees on private
Bills, that the standing order No. 1 should be moved at the
commencement of every session. He found that that order was
that the Committee should consist of 42 Members, five to be a
quorum in opposed cases, and three a quorum in cases not op-
posed. But the House did not in every case require that this
order should be substantiated by a motion. He found indeed
that with the exception of 1845, the year adverted to by the
Hon. and Learned Member for Cork, it had never been deemed
necessary to adopt this course. The Hon. Member had re-
fused to comply with the call made by the House ; he was
therefore guilty of contempt, and he had been accordingly com-
mitted.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. STURT said, there was no doubt that some difficulty
arose from the method in which the standing order was framed;
but at the same time, looking at the words, and also at what
had been the practice of the House. He did not think
they could have any difficulty at arriving at a decision. Ail
the Committees of the House had been appointed by the same
order, which only required that a Committee should be an"
pointed at the commencement of the session ; and it could not
be done otherwise, for the Speaker could not, consistently with
his duty, have put a question to the House which would have
negatived its own authority, which, he contended, would be
the case if, having ordered the appointment of a Committee 11
a sessional order, they put it in the power of the Member to
make lightjof that appointment. It stated that these Committees
should be appointed at the commencement of each session,
and the order recommends that these selections should be re-
ported to the House. He could not speak of the perfect accu-
racy of the phraseology employed, but such as it was the,
were bound to act upon it. The words made use of were--
" shall be appointed;;" and he was not of opinion
that the terms of a standing order were to 11,
construed with the strictness of a phrase of an Act 0
Parliament, or of a bill of indictment, but still in taking these
words in their common sense of construction, it was impossible
for the Standing Orders' Committee to act otherwise than they
had done. With such an impression he could not help voting
with the Hon. Member for Oxford on this occasion, and giving
his decided opposition to the motion.
Mr. O'CONNELL thought that the Right Hon. Member.
for Devonport had entirely misapprehended the terms of his
motion. Its object was not that Mr. O'Brien be immediatelY
discharged from custody, but that he should be discharged to
attend the Committee to which he had been appointed.
must say, that he trusted the decision to which the House vise
about to come would be more in accordance with comport
sense than were the terms of the standing orders on which
Mr. O'Brien was committed.—(Laughter.) What might be the
meaning of the terms of the standing orders under which Mr.
O'Brien was committed he could not pretend to say, but he
trusted the House would not become wiseacres to interpret it
—(Laughter)---but certainly it would be out of rule to Inter-
pret it according as the Standing Orders' Committee had male
it out. The wording of the standing order, as he would
comprehend it, was at variance with cornn°`!
sense, • and he thought in violation of all the rules
of grammar. He thought then that on consideratio
the House would perceive that it would be impossible to c?n..
fine Mr. Smith O'Brien, when the phraseology of the standing;
order was so contradictory in itself, especially when they CO
sidered how many persons were interested in the result.
this occasion, therefore, he trusted that the House would 17
upon the question as he viewed it, and with that hope he move
that Mr. Smith O'Brien be discharged.
Mr. WAKLEY rose, amidst loud cries of " Divide, divideh.,
He said he hoped that this question would not be decided
out the officers of the Crown stating their opinion of ct.
(" Oh ! oh !" and cries of " No, no")—for he was sni7
in consequence of what had transpired before on this subjecol,
that if it was not debated and decided on the rounds of
common sense, and on the words of the standing order, ti! „,0
great dissatisfaction would be felt by the country, and 5%
greater dissatisfaction by the Members of that House on sore
future occasion, when they themselves might be placed in .
similar position to Mr. Smith O'Brien. Now, could anything
be plainer than the words of the order ;._« At the commence"
ment of every session the Committee shall be appointed"!
(Several Hon. Members here called out, "Be appointed"/
—For his Honourable Friend the Member -for Kee:
dal, had in his (Mr. Wakley's) opinion, given a coffee'
interpretation of the words. The right interpretation of that
order was as plain and obvious to his (Mr. Wakley's) apple'
hension as anything they could place before him. New, what.
had been the practise of the preceding session ? No one bad •
asked that question. Was,there a precedent for the course
they had taken? He put that question to the House, and if
there was not he was at a loss to know on what right they had:
now a gentleman, one of their Members, in custody ? It was, et!
the very best, a doubtful proceeding. But would they interpret
the law in its most stringent sense? Why should they not say
to this gentleman, " We don't think you have• been very wise;
and it is not pleasant that our wisdom should be discussed; no
will let you out, and let us shake hands ?"—(Laughter.)
did not think that any degree of want of dignity would atta`;„
to such a course ; but, at any rate, it was the honest
committed'course'
for it was plain and obvious that a mistake had been
suger
and he thought they ought not to make another person
for their own fault.
Mr. AGLIONBY said it was not his intention to have
the troubled the House with any observations on this subject, ,
as the Hon. Gentleman had raised a technical objection to
order, and insisted that the House had made a mistaken;
which opinion he could not coincide, he wished to °cello' t aY
attention for but a few moments. He would not give lore
sent to the opinion of the Hon. Geneteman,that the law o
of the Crown ought to express their opinion of the order, rit
a.
fore the House adopted any steps respecting it ; for, bol,
been a question of mere law, it might have been necessary h'e
have received their opinion, but in this case they would not
considered other than simply Members of the House. Ahe
__„
orders had been drawn up by the House, and therefore it:vv,a:
the House who were only competent to discuss them, and
an
ought to be appealed to as to their construction, or to alter
en,'„
repeal them, so that the other Members of the HouseLweearro7
competent to discuss their merits as the Hontimanwdords bee
Gentlemen opposite. The question arose n
words "
nature, and to card
ments which seemed to be of a weighty
of the thing, but the Hon. Membel.
appointed." The Hon. Member for Derby bad adduced arga'
conviction on the reason
arguments, and said t
showed an entirely tiff 1
the words "be appointede House. The Hon er. eat in-
tention on the part of. th
for Kendall took eacep.tionat these
the mbar f°,,r
Cork stated that, ininted
meant at least some sort y , apt,
.tse.,
b! o°fPniin appointmentw
of the Committee of Sj, ,e House kit;
Did any member
harsh did fR
wish to place aceasstrues> ection, or
„no,
House,
? (Hear, hear.) He tar one on on the sten.'
order ossible
readiness,
agree to such 8, Cor ould, with all p
as would atimit of the rr truction of the we' of
Mr. Smith O'Brien, 'were Asnharge from custody foli
rti e
such a step.—chln-,r,
cs-e",,r, hear.) other consequences to
305
the matter as the Ho-, At present they were to disstaao
and never kad been co Gentleman never was in cu Hon,
and Leap Member for Cork
If the arguments of threoceed,
ing Pf. the Committee were to be taken, everYaiP„ car'
unatees appointed) by that standing orders, and of. 011
and void. If the body, would, be entirely
ar
pointed, so as to have Committee of Selection were front
it would be vicious, no authority, every act emanating fro
and every proceeding of the The
on Groups of R •
adwas would be in like manner vole•
saver
House
might remedbwoulds
this y a vote, or by which mote
tion the
proceedings of these Committees ; but that svas:: obser-*
of comparatively email import. He would confine
mantanl vations to the sin le words, "be appointed." He an-
that the Committee had been appointed constitutionally. It
strictly according to the words of the standing ordersointea
was not necessary that the Committee should be e octet
by the House, as the Hon. Men ber had construed the
red
to mean ; neither was it necessary that it should be aPrweicla
in the House. It was virtually appointed by sonntilierobi.el
had previously been done by the House. The 'lnn' tof
also said, that the House had not the appointroeti_riais for
chairman. The moment the House named the mat! forcer
the Committee, the standing orders, No. 4, came
a, in
qes'
11
and ipso facto the appointment was made. This wd been al)"
tion for the House to decide, for the Committee had Govern"'
pointed by the House, and not by any Member of the oon•
ment, and he hoped it would not be thought that any
Member had taken it in anyERAL other lig
said that be only ht. Mke
to make one remark. He could feel it was unnecessary to ch
any comment on the motion before the House after tne,_'`,l pit
ho nn
t
of the Hon. Baronet the Member for Davenport, v 4
_rks fro
made any vein.
the question in its proper light, and
him wholly uncalled for. . the 11°°
Lord POLLINGTON said that the question for
made
ice
to consider was, whether or not a mistake hadbeen to -
othing. d
the committal of the Hon. Member. They had n art
with the inconvenience which might arise out of
rejet the
error.—( Hear, hear.) If a mistake had been made'
once) to
at nnsa'-y to
House give the Hon. Member the benefit of it by
He had 0 ,
charging him from custody.—( Hear, bear.)
say that, having great doubts as to the construe