STANDING ORDERS — IRISH RAILWAYS. (Hansard, 8 May 1845)

§ Sir G. Grey
observed, that the substance of the Motion of which he had given notice had been partially discussed in the House the night before, when it appeared that the House thought that some Motion of the nature of that which he intended to propose was desirable. It was far from being his intention to throw any obstacle in the way of the construction of railways in Ireland; on the other hand, he was favourable to the proper promotion of such schemes for the internal improvement of that country. In regard to the Standing Orders at present in force, no difficulty had been found, so far as the English and Scottish railways were concerned, in complying with them. In Ireland, however, as had been formerly stated, there were peculiar circumstances and local disadvantages which rendered it next to impossible to adhere to some of these Orders. He thought that the best way in which to encourage the promotion of railway schemes in Ireland, was not to bind down the promoters of such schemes to an accidental majority in a Committee. A few clear and explicit rules should be laid down for their government in all cases; and such, when adopted, should be generally adhered to. The Standing Orders, as they at present stood, however, he was led to believe, might be found in many instances inapplicable to Ireland; and he should, therefore, move— That a Select Committee be appointed to 286 inquire and report whether any and which of the Standing Orders which are enforced in the case of Railway Bills in Great Britain, are unnecessary and ought to be dispensed with in the case of Railway Bills in Ireland.

§ Lord Granville Somerset
would not oppose the Motion of the right hon. Baronet. The doubt in this matter should be cleared up to the satisfaction of the House. Allegations had been made as to peculiarity of circumstances in the case of Ireland, of the truth of which, if correct, the House should be satisfied. If it should be proved that peculiar hardships existed from enforcing the Standing Orders, from peculiarity of tenure, or other circumstances in Ireland, it was but right that the House should take into consideration the matter contemplated by the Motion of the right hon. Baronet.

§ Mr. F. French
said, that if the Motion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Devonport stood alone, he would not say a word on the subject; but, coupled as it was with the Motion of the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. S. Wortley), which followed it in the Notices of Motion, by which it was proposed to send to the Committee now moved for, "The Report of the Sub-Committee on Petitions for Private Bills on the Great Western (Ireland) Railways Bill"—coupling those two Motions together, he could not but express his deep regret at this attempt to upset the decision to which the House had come the other evening with respect to the Great Western Railway Bill. He was the more confirmed in his belief that such was the object of the two Motions, when he considered that the proposed reference was to a Committee of fifteen Members, eight of whom had already voted against the Bill. Hon. Members had talked of the Committee on Standing Orders as if the decisions of that Committee were infallible; though it was a matter of notoriety that they had been reversed on many occasions by the House, whose power to do so nobody would deny. That the House possessed the authority of reversing the decisions of the Standing Orders Committee, was beyond doubt. In the very useful and able work of Mr. May, on the Proceedings and Usages of Parliament, it was stated— That if the Committee report that the Standing Orders ought not to be dispensed with, their decision was generally fatal to the Bill, although no reasons were ever assigned 287 for their determination. It was true their Report was not conclusive, and could not preclude the House from giving a more favourable consideration to the case; and there were precedents, under peculiar circumstances, where parties have been permitted to proceed. In order to leave the question open, the House of Commons agrees only to those Reports from the Standing Orders Committee which are favourable to the progress of Bills, and passes no opinion upon the unfavourable Reports, which are merely ordered to lie upon the Table. If there be special circumstances, such as the consent of all parties, or the urgent necessity of the Bill being passed in the present Session, the case is thus brought under the immediate consideration of the House. It must be of a peculiar nature to obtain the indulgence of the House, as the House places confidence in the Standing Orders Committee. But there were very many precedents of the indulgence being granted within the last few years—such as the Doncaster and Selby Road Bill, in 1832; the Oakington Inclosure Bill, in 1833; the London Bridge Approaches Bill, in 1834; but it was true that the hon. Member for Oxford was not Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee on those occasions. He would give them two cases in the hon. Member's own time, when the House reversed the decisions of the Committee over which the hon. Member now so ably presieed; for instance, the London City Police Bill, in 1829, when a petition was presented, setting forth that the Standing Orders Committee had decided that the Standing Orders ought not to be dispensed with, and praying that they might be permitted to proceed with their Bill, in such manner and under such restrictions as the House might think proper. It was then ordered, that leave be given to bring in a Bill as prayed; and again, in 1840, in the London and Greenwich Railway Enlargement and Station Bill, a petition of the London and Croydon Railway Company was presented, praying that they might be allowed to proceed with this Bill, notwithstanding that the Select Committee on Standing Orders had reported that the Standing Orders ought not to be dispensed with. A Motion was made, that the Report made from the Committee on Standing Orders, to which the petition for the Bill was referred, might be read; and the same being read, it was moved that the Croydon Railway Company might have leave to proceed with their Bill for the London and Greenwich Railway Enlarge- 288 ment and Station; and the same being put to the vote, there appeared for the Motion, 95; against it, 22; and leave was accordingly given to proceed with the Bill. In each and every one of those cases no question was raised, and the Bills became law. It was only when Ireland was to be benefited, that some hon. Members adventured to raise a question of the kind. What had already occurred with respect to this Bill could not now be helped; and he hoped that any new regulation which the House might adopt, might not be framed to act retrospectively. The majority of the House of Commons who had decided on this question, would neither suffer their motives to be impugned, nor their decision to be reversed.

§ Mr. W. Patten
said, that the observations of the hon. Member for Roscommon might have better been reserved for the Motion of which his hon. Friend the Member for York had given notice. He thought that the House should first decide whether they would have the Select Committee, and it would then be time enough to point out any particular course or duty to it. He cordially concurred in the Motion for the Select Committee.

§ Sir R. H. Inglis
said, that no one would venture to controvert the doctrine of the hon. Member for Roscommon—that the Standing Orders Committee were not so infallible as that the House would not reverse their decisions. No doubt the House would reverse the decisions of that or any other Committee, except Election Committees, from which there was no appeal to the House. But in the case of a railway project, in which there had been not less than 306 non-compliances with the Standing Orders, thirty-three of which were vital, he did think the House should require a very strong case to be made out before it would set aside the decision of the Committee on Standing Orders. It was said that the peculiar tenure of land in Ireland rendered the service of notices more difficult than in this country; but if that were so, let the Committee devise some means of giving to all Bills the same extent of privileges.

§ Mr. F. French
, in explanation, denied that there had been any violations of the Standing Orders with respect to the Bill, and this could be put beyond doubt.

§ Mr. Shaw
objected to the proposed Committee, which he was sure would end in nothing, and it would be found that 289 the violations of the Standing Orders were by no means so numerous as had been stated; but, even admitting the fact to be the other way, he thought this a peculiar case, against which the Standing Orders ought not to be too strictly enforced. He had voted for the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon the other evening, though he owned he was not quite satisfied with himself for having done so. He could not speak on the subject without making this admission. He thought, however, no sufficient grounds had been laid for the present Motion.

§ Mr. Warburton
was favourable to the appointment of the Committee. Certain allegations having been made, an opportunity of proving them should be afforded.

§ Mr. Ward
said, the decision to which the House had come the other night had produced a most unfavourable impression upon all who were interested in railway property; and he thought they were bound in that case to carry out rigorously the principles which they had adopted with regard to railway legislation. The House had no choice but to rescind its former Resolution.

Mr. Bernal
said, the uncertainty of the decisions of that House in these matters affected the value of railway shares, and promoted jobbing.

§ Sir H. W. Barron
did not see why there should be so much discussion in reference to this particular Bill. There was no practical difference, except that this was an Irish Bill, while the others were English Bills, between this case and the case of the other five or six Bills, on account of which the decision of the Standing Orders Committee had been reversed within the last five or six years. The only parties who would be injured by the infraction of the Standing Orders were the proprietors of the land in the line of the railway, and these parties were favourable to the Bill.

Mr. J. S. Wortley
observed, that the merits of the Bill were not before the House; the Motion was merely for a Committee to inquire into the application of the Standing Orders to Ireland.