§ Mr. Humerose, in pursuance of notice, to move a standing order, that no member having an interest in a Private Bill should be allowed to vote on the committee on that Bill. He had been strongly impressed with the impropriety of the existing practice, not merely during the present session, but for many sessions. It had gone on from worse to worse, until, at length, it had arrived to an extent of injustice and evil which could no longer be tolerated. The House were bound to interfere in order to do justice to the parties before them, and to render their proceedings respected. The business in committees above stairs was no longer a question of justice between the parties; it was one merely of canvas and influence. It was very common, even in the House itself, to see members remain out of it 911 until the division, and then come into vote. But that was nothing compared with what took place in committees above stairs. No individual who had not attended those committees, could possibly judge of the proceedings which occurred in them. As he was not a frequent attendant, it was only lately that he had become aware of the extent of the evil. Many of the members of committees on private bills were in the habit of daily receiving letters and applications from the solicitors and other parties concerned. Such communications ought to be treated with the indignation with which a judge on the Bench would treat similar documents. A recent instance had occurred of the proper indignation of a judge on such a subject; and, by a parity of reasoning, he was warranted in drawing the conclusion that the similar practice with respect to private bills ought to be put an end to. The usage was, for every member of a private committee to receive a letter, requesting him to come down, not to hear the evidence before the committee, but at three o'clock, when the division was expected; and this was asked as a personal favour. At other times members were entreated to speak to their friends on the subject of private bills. These were not rare, but frequent practices. Now, if they were at all to consider themselves in the situation of judges, he put it to the House, whether the members of committees on private bills, although not bound by law, as was the case with the members of committees on contested elections, constantly to attend, ought not to conform to that which was the spirit under which they were appointed, and attend as closely as possible to hear the evidence adduced by the various parties. If not as judges, the members of a committee on a private bill should at least consider themselves as jurors, and should take care that they were not liable to be challenged. It was by no means wonderful that the character of the committees of that House had been so completely lost, when it was stated, as he had himself heard, that a solicitor had been known to declare, that with names or money he could carry or defeat any private bill. He did not say that such was the case with respect to every private committee; but it was the case with respect to so many, that the character of the House of Commons, as regarded private bills, was completely lost? so much so, that few indi- 912 viduals would venture to introduce or to oppose a private bill, unless he had abundance both of money and of friends. This was an abuse which no man could defend. He had formed an opinion himself of the manner in which committees above stairs might be reformed; and he had no doubt that his plan, if carried into effect, would be succeesful. But he thought that such a plan would much better originate in a committee than in an individual. There was one crying evil, however, which might be put a stop to by the House, without precluding them from appointing a committee for the consideration of the other parts of the subject. In that committee, a reform might very probably be commenced of the whole system respecting private bills, the fees to clerks, &c. &c. None of the abuses to which he had alluded, existed by the sanction of the House. He could prove to the House, that not one of the many abuses that existed in the system of these committees upon private bills, existed by the sanction of the House itself; and he had always understood, that when a committee up stairs was vested with the power of calling for persons, papers, and records, it was vested with the same rights, and was to be regulated by the same rules and principles, as the House of Commons was vested with and regulated by. In their committees, therefore, he conceived that no practice ought to obtain, which was contrary to the spirit of their own proceedings. But he would cite a few cases to shew that, on the contrary, great abuses of those rules and principles were tolerated above stairs. In saying this, he meant to impute no blame to any one. To the system,, and the system only, and not to any particular individuals, was the evil to be ascribed. If hon. gentlemen would take the trouble of referring to Hatsell's Precedents, they would find that the observations he had just made were there offered twenty years ago, in the most forcible manner, and the necessity of correcting the abuses in question insisted upon. His principal object in quoting this authority was, to show that there were numerous precedents in which the principle had been enforced by parliament—that no person interested in the fate of any private bill should vote in the committee upon it. On the 12th of June, 1604, a Mr. Seymour was requested to withdraw from the House, pending the debate on a certain bill, such request 913 being found to be, under the circumstances, agreeable with former order and precedent in like cases. The hon. gentleman proceeded to notice very briefly a variety of cases appearing upon the Journals of the House; which cases, he contended, went to prove, that the House itself had always refused to allow members interested in such bills to be present at their discussion: still less had it permitted them to vote on such occasions. Now this rule was constantly violated in committees; who, nevertheless, it was quite evident, were bound to observe and follow the rules and orders of the House. Before he concluded, he would just mention, as a strong exemplification of the evil which he complained of, that of a committee upon a recent private bill for incorporating a company in the nature of a Joint-stock company, 16 individuals, of course members of parliament, occasionally met, and discussed, and voted, and sat in judgment upon that very measure, and assisted in the examination of the witnesses, they themselves being shareholders of such company, in various sums, from 30,000l. and 20,000l. down to 500l. The fact was, that every projector of a new company, for which a legislative sanction was necessary, thought it absolutely necessary to have among his subscribers a certain number of members of parliament; without whose aid he could entertain little or no hope of getting his bill passed. He contended, that the rule to be applied to committees of the House of Commons should be—if not more strict, at least as strict as that which applied to juries—namely, that no man should be a judge in his own case. The hon. gentleman said, he asked no more of the House than that they would put an end to. such a crying evil; and he would therefore conclude by moving," That it be a standing order of tin's House, that no member shall vote in any committee above stairs on any question where his pecuniary interest is directly concerned, as in bills for establishing Dock Companies, Canal Companies, Joint-stock Companies, of which he shall be a member, or for inclosures of commons, making of roads, when the measure is expected to confer pecuniary advantage, or to diminish pecuniary loss to him; and that the practice in committees above stairs be regulated on the same principle, and in the same manner, as the decisions of this House have been regulated, when members have had a direct 914 pecuniary interest in any bill before the House."
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, that if he entertained any doubt upon the expediency of adopting the hon. gentleman's recommendation with regard to the constitution of committees up stairs, it was not upon the soundness of the principle on which that recommendation was founded, for every body must concur with him in admitting that to the hon. gentleman; but he doubted very much whether a new standing order would at all remedy the evil complained of, and whether the adoption of the resolution submitted by the hon. gentleman would not rather leave the House in a worse situation, than establish it in a better, as to those committees. The right hon. gentleman then appealed to the chair in order to know, whether the rules of the House itself governed the proceedings of committees?
§ The Speakersaid, he held it to be quite clear, that all the rules by which that House regulated its own conduct continued in full operation in every committee that sat above stairs. The hon. gentleman who had opened this case had, in his judgment, very distinctly stated this as the ground of his proposition.
§ Mr. Canningresumed. He said, he had always understood, that the rule of proceeding on committees, must depend, in a great measure, upon the circumstances of the individual case. The rule might exclude, he thought, in many cases where it could be shewn that the interests of members on a committee were concerned in the bill under their consideration; but the question—the difficult question— would always remain, as to who should be admissible members, and who should not? Now, he took it, that no order of the House could solve that difficulty; but that the matter out of which the abuse arose—and an abuse it certainly was, in the case put by the hon. gentleman—must be left generally to the honour and the feeling of members. So in questions of contested elections; he apprehended, that however members, almost all of them, might be imagined to be influenced on one side or the other, it was always to be supposed, that such questions would be decided upon principles of honour and justice There seemed to be no difficulty in supporting the mere theoretic principle, which was so properly contended for; but a vast deal of difficulty in enforcing its application. The principle, as he had 915 before observed, no one could doubt. If the hon. gentleman could see any prospect of practically enforcing it, he would not object to the resolution: but, as it stood at present, it certainly did infer, that, up to this period, such had not been the principle that the House had laid down, or that if it had so laid it down, the principle had not been observed. The hon. gentleman, indeed, had said, that upon such a principle that House had formerly acted; but it seemed to have been so in cases only where individuals had had the courage to stand forward and challenge the vote of that particular individual who was an interested party. And he could not help thinking, with regard to the bill of which the House had heard such a curious account, that if the hon. gentleman possessed so accurate a knowledge of the particular interests of members in it, and had thought proper to challenge their votes, the question of such challenge must have been decided up stairs, upon the same principles and in the same way as if the question had arisen in that House. It did not appear to him, that the hon. gentleman's motion would be at all effectual or conclusive, or in any degree help to cure the evil of which, with so much justice, he had complained. Until a new system could be devised, calculated effectively to remedy the abuse that had been alluded to, he should feel justified in meeting this sort of proposition by moving the previous question; thereby not at all intending to dispute the propriety of establishing the principle for which the hon. gentleman contended.
§ Sir W. De Crespignydeprecated the system upon which committees above stairs were conducted, both as to the mode in which members on them permitted themselves to be canvassed, and in which the committees were got up: and particularly as to the way in which the wandering members were brought in and frequently voted, in utter ignorance of the anterior proceedings of a committee, and without the benefit of that knowledge of the business before it, which the regular members of such committee must necessarily possess.
Mr. S. Wortleyconcurred in thinking, that the House would be rather diminishing the ground upon which it stood in regard to its committees of this nature, than gaining any better station, if it acceded to the proposition of the hon. gentleman. A popular feeling prevailed, that some al- 916 teration ought to take place in the formation of these committees; but he could not exactly agree with the hon. mover in thinking the subject a proper one for the discussion of such a committee as he wished to refer it to. He fully concurred with the hon. baronet in condemning the practice of members coming into a committee at a late hour, and voting on a question on which they had not heard a word of the arguments or evidence. The object the House should have in view was, to impress on members, that if they did not choose to attend committees, they should think themselves bound not to vote.
Mr. Grenfellwould beg to suggest to his hon. friend, after all that had been said, to withdraw his motion. But, at the same time that he suggested this, he would say, that the House and the country were indebted to his hon. friend for having brought it forward. From his own knowledge of the practice of one committee, at which he had attended for a considerable time, he would assert, that the mode of proceeding was not only a perversion, but a complete denial of justice. It was-quite hopeless, in many cases, to expect to carry anything against the views of particular parties. With the knowledge which the House now possessed on this subject, he did hope that some remedy would be speedily applied; and if the forms of the House, after the previous-question having been moved, would allow his hon. friend to withdraw his motion, he hoped he would do so, and move that a select committee be appointed to inquire into the evil, with the view of applying some remedy. Some such course was absolutely necessary to rescue the House of Commons from the disgrace which would otherwise attach to them, from the mode in which business was conducted in some of their committees up stairs. From what he had seen of the practice in some committees, he would say—Let a private bill be brought in on the first day of a session, and let that session be the longest known in the history of parliament, and he would undertake (provided he got money enough) to prevent that bill from passing, by the delays which he could, according to the present practice, occasion in its progress. He had known an instance, in a committee, of a counsel speaking for five hours and a half on one point, and another speaking two hours and a half on the same point; and let the House understand, that this mode of pro- 917 ceeding would occupy a committee for two days of their sitting; for committees seldom met before half-past 12, and were at an end when it was known that the Speaker was in the chair in the House. But this length of speaking was not confined to the object before the committee. It had often no more to do with it than if the counsel were to take a page out of Hume's history and discuss its merits. But it was of no use to interrupt counsel on such occasions, for the interruption and the arguments to which it would give rise, would occupy a still greater portion of time than if he were allowed to proceed. He could not, while he was upon this subject, avoid adverting to the practice of canvassing members out of doors for their support to particular measures before private committees. This was carried to an extent scarcely credible: but it was not a modern evil. And here he was reminded of an anecdote of the late Mr. Burke, who, being warmly urged by a lady of high rank to give his support to a particular measure then before a private committee, replied, "I am extremely sorry I cannot oblige your ladyship, but I have already promised my injustice to the opposite party."
§ Mr. Ellicealso wished the motion to be withdrawn, and that his hon. friend should give notice of a motion on the subject for next session.
§ Sir M. W. Ridleywas of opinion, that a more strict attention to the standing orders of the House, with respect to private bills, would be the best remedy which could be applied to an evil, the existence of which was not denied. When there were sometimes forty committees on private bills sitting on the same day, how could proper attention be paid to them all?
Lord Stanleythought that a great deal of inconvenience was created by the inattention of members who were nominated on private committees. He had recently witnessed the inconvenience produced by the non-attendance of members on private committees.
Mr. B. Wilbrahamrecommended the hon. member to withdraw his motion, and to move for a select committee to inquire into the evil complained of. He would not, however, wish that such committee should be delayed till next session.
§ Mr. Scarlettsaid, that if the House made the regulation, that no member in a private committee should vote upon a 918 question at the discussion of which he was not present, (which he himself did not object to), the public, seeing the importance thus attached to private bills, would pray, that no member who had not been present at its discussion should be allowed to vote upon any public measure; which, perhaps, though a very reasonable request, might be found inconvenient in some cases.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that after what he had heard, he had no objection to withdraw his motion; and in lieu of it, to submit a motion for a committee to inquire into the subject.
§ Mr. Canningsaid, he would withdraw his amendment, in order to give the hon. member an opportunity of withdrawing his motion; but he would recommend him to attend to give a notice of motion for next session, rather than the present, as the committee would then have sufficient time for going fully into the question.
The motion was then withdrawn. After which, Mr. Hume moved, "That a select committee be appointed, to inquire whether the present mode of conducting the Private Business of this House, in Committees above stairs, requires any and what regulations and alterations; and that they do report their observations and opinion thereon to the House." The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed.