Star.
London, England, 1825-02-24 00:00:00

', .

,•:*

formed, down came an Honourable and Learned Friend
of his, anxious for the fate of the Bill, with all the forces
he could muster in favour of it. He had not been
scrupulous in• whom he got to perform this service.
It was no matter to him, so he gamed his Bill, whether
they had heard the evidence adduced before the Com-
mittee or not. He, had swept all the Committees with
his influence, and actually got twenty Members to out-
vote their sixteen. Therefore it was that he said he
would never vote upon a private Bill at the mere in-
stance of a friend. Canvassing for votes in this shame-
lers manner was contrary to the laws of the country,
where the property of private individuals was concerned.
The Members of that House represented all interests,
including their own ; and it was obvious that no Hon.
Member, as an honest man, could reconcile it to his
conscience to vote away the interests of others at the'
mere suggestion of a friewd. He had no objection to
Hon. Gentlemen voting upon private Bills. GOD forbid
be should—there was no other way of conducting busi-
ness. But he contended that every man ought to weigh
well both sides of the question, examine the matter
pro and can, and look as scrupulously into the merits
of the case as he would be tempted to do were his own
personal interests involved in it—( Hear, hear). It was
not to be decided because A.B. asked him to vote one
way, and C. D. or the wife of C. D. or the sister of the
same personage, asked him to vote another—(Hear), and
he hoped those who cheered him in this sentiment would
be prepared to go along with him in some measure
which should satisfactorily establish the practice of the
House in a more conscientious manner. As to the limits
of any such measure, that would be a subject for graver
consideration. If the principle were good in private
cases, it was much more imperative where public in-
terests were concerned. For instance, what right could
Lords of the Admiralty have to vote upon the motion
of his Hon. Friend, the Member for Newcastle, who
s ished to suppress one of them ?—(Hear). Why ould
Borough-ownet s be allowed to vote against Parliansen-
tary Reform? Again, how could it be tolprated that
those who fattened upon the public money should join
their influence in crushing any motion for the retrench-
ment of the public purse? In the case too of his Hon.
Frienda he M embet for Wareham(Mr.Calc ra ft),whose mo-
tion for the repeal of the Salt Tax was almost carried in
spite of opposition,was it right that those who had brothers quartered
upon saltiand because this motionwent to take ask from theirporridge
—was it right, he would ask, that they should be allowed to vote
against it ?—(Hear, and a lamb). He hoped upon those grounds
that Hon. Members who would not allow Members to vote upon
private Bills in which they were interested, would go a step further
with him, and exclude those also who had a direct interest in any
public measure—( Hear. hear).
Mr. BYNG concurred in the opinion that Hon.
Members should not vote-upon measures in which their
own interests were involved.
Mr. BARING considered the subject as one of the
utmost importance to the character of the House, of
which every one, he was sure, would feel the full value.
No one who had been a twelvemonth Member of that
House could fail to have been shocked with the manner
in, which the private business was conducted—(Hear,
A Mr).. It was inJeed the most disgraceful exhibition a
civilized 'country could present—(Hear). Every ques-
tion was decided, not upon its own merits, but upon
the influence which its projectors possessed. That was
notorious all over the country, but still it was shocking
to see the way in which evidence was overturned. If
any one in that House were to say to 'another, " You
are to be on such a Jury : now I have a case coming
on, will you belt iend it with your vote ?"-..Would any
man of honour be able to sit under the implied imputa-
tion?—(hear, hear). Yet was not this daily the case
in that House ? He did not mean to say he had never
voted upon a private Bill ; but he could safely say he
bad never done so without first making himself ac-
quainted with the subject upon which he was to vote.
He should have been ia satisfied with himself had he
given a dishonest vote. While the proceedings of that
House exhibited such disgiaceful practices, it would
be impossible to leave die matter where it was. Some
alteration must take place, and certain he was, that any
mode must be better than the existing one: In the
election of a Committee, a power might be granted to
either party to strike out a certain number whom they
might know to be adverse. Resort might be had to
ballot ; but if all suggestions should be unavailing,
then, in justice to the subjects of the country, that
House ought to give up, or have taken from it the power of
transacting private hosinese—{Hear). In measures where the in-
itetwats of individual Members were concerned, it warldibe more to
the bosom of Matadairs to avoid being challenged by chancre's(
theasseiveir(liear). He hoped mime means would be takes so
remedy the whole
Colonel DAVIESIte differed from the Honourable
Member- who spoke last. He thought that if the right
of managing the private business were taken away from them, the
rights of their constituents wash, be infringed. As their Represen.
taken they could not abandon table privilege in this respect. As
to making any change, they would plunge into deeper difficulties by
the attempt.
Mr. CALCRAFT said he could not go to the extent
of his Honourable Friends in censuring the conduct of
Members in regard to Private Bills—(ifear, hear). He
believed there was a great deal of canvassing for votes,
and that a great number of persons did vote without
being masters of the case. But so long as there existed
confidence between man and man, this sort of influence
would be exercised ; and if the Members of this House
were not fit for the discharge of that part of their duty,
what would become of those more important duties
which their constituents sent them there to transact ?
For his part, he had never heard any discontent ex-
pressed about Private Bills, that had passed the House,
and let there be as much jobbing as there might, in pri•
vate Committees, it was still in the power of the House
to over• rule their decision. He did not deny the exist-
ence of the evil, but maintained that there were proper
checks established against that sort of jobbing, which,
however, he denied to exist in that degree o lich had been
imputed to them. To say that no man should ask his
friends, over whom he had some influence, to come down
and vote upon any particular measure, was to say, that no
man should place confidence in the judgment of another.
Cases had occurred in that House, of Bills being re-
d the manner in which they bad
. ant that be done again,
remedy for the evil? if
in private Committees,
turned off, and others mote
He knew very well the
saajorldes In that Hesse ; but he
ea up stairs. The tent=ba:
COMniittee ; and if a
—t was asked of him in a Cons-
eorrept Umber of that Hems.
another tribes:all for this bed.
• anythind they were fit to be
Acte..(Hear).
at hii on. Friend iMr.
r Members voted for
y were not acquainted, ail
neither evidence nor arris•J

pealed in consequence of the am
been obtained ; and why thould i
and considered as a standing Tel
itejownrse so.eltetteameiber dutytu ii
rte
competent got in their stead. 11
1 f 1
iblarsilaritrau".l:ks. bCooltraral
, k
;I was waists Ilswathan to the Goa
Y wow swift w wasp On favour that a
. JJ. .
witanaolat wady walthe a vary canal
Bli Howerallie Mead talked et NW
mass, bat wasil4,U dray WI NN fit foe as
triatai with Warm sad Tampa, A
t Mr. BILIGHT olosataati that
Calcraft) admiued that many N
i with the merits of which tiny w
upon which they had beard neit
. _ _