STANDING ORDERS—PRIVATE BILLS. (Hansard, 26 April 1838)

Mr. S. Lefevre,
in rising to make the motion of which he had given notice, felt it his duty to state to the House, that it was not his intention to propose, that the Committee which he asked for, should revise all the standing orders of the House. The Committee which had sat last Session, had gone over the whole of them, and introduced many important improvements, so that it was not necessary to go again into the whole subject. The new standing orders, the result of the labours of the Committee of last Session, had worked so well, that although upwards of 150 private bills had been introduced during the present Session, there were only three points in reference to those bills, in regard to which any doubts had arisen. His object, therefore, in moving for the appointment of a Committee, was to have those points examined, so as to remove all doubts which existed in regard to the construction of the orders of the House. There was, however, another point to which he proposed the attention of the Committee should be directed. Material differences existed between the standing orders of the House of Lords, and the standing orders of the House of Commons, and he wished to assimilate them to each other. In regard to railways, the standing orders of the House of Commons required the parties to give notice of their intention to apply to Parliament for a bill in the months of February and March, but by the standing orders of the House of Lords, notice was required to be given at two different periods; and in consequence of this disagreement between the orders of the two Houses, great inconvenience was entailed upon the parties applying for bills. It was therefore important, that the orders of the two Houses of Parliament should be assimilated on this point, and he proposed, that the attention of the Committee should be directed to that ob- 621 ject. He therefore begged leave to move, that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the standing orders of the House of Commons relating to private bills, and to compare them with those of the House of Lords, with the view of assimilating as much as possible the standing orders of both Houses.

§ Mr. Hume
said, that when private bills, which had been sent up from that House, were brought down from the House of Lords, clauses were often found added, many of which he considered were useless; yet they were given to understand, that unless they were consented to by the Commons, the bills would not pass the House of Lords. He thought it worth while for the Committee to inquire whether something might not be done to remedy this evil.

§ Mr. Poulett Thomson
was very glad that something was to be done to remedy the evils which arose from the difficulty of construing some of the standing orders of the House. After what had been done by former Committees, he believed, that the standing orders were now nearly in a perfect state, and that little remained to be done but to remove the doubts which existed as to the construction of a few of them. In regard to the differences which existed between the standing orders of the two Houses, he was most anxious that those differences should be removed, but, at the same time, he was unwilling to depart from the order of 1836 in regard to notices of private bills. He thought it important, that that order should continue in force, and that the notices should be still given in February and March, and he did not doubt, that the House of Lords would, when the matter was fairly represented, consent to assimilate their orders to those of the House of Commons on this point. He was perfectly willing to assent to the appointment of a Committee, and he would do everything in his power to render its labours effectual. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Kilkenny, he was unable to say anything in regard to the clauses to which the hon. Member had alluded; but, as the subject had been mentioned, he could not forbear giving his testimony to the admirable way in which the private business was conducted in the other House by the noble Lord, the Chairman of Committees. But for the care which that noble Lord bestowed 622 upon the private business of Parliament, they would have a great deal of legislation in no way creditable to that House. It was not right, however, that the House of Commons should depend on a noble Lord in another place for correcting their errors, and he should be glad if any means could be devised for remedying the defect.

§ Mr. Ward
said, that the difference between the standing orders of the two Houses in regard to the periods for giving notice of any application to Parliament for private bills had given rise to great difficulties, and been productive of much inconvenience to those parties who had embarked in great and important undertakings. He therefore trusted, that the result of the labours of the Committee would be to assimilate the orders of the two Houses so as to prevent the possibility of any inconvenience for the future.