§ A petition was presented from the Regent's Canal Company, complaining that a petition had been presented to the House, praying for leave to bring in a bill to empower a certain company to construct a railway from the Isle of Dogs into one of the most populous districts of the metropolis; although the standing orders of the House had not been complied with respecting the notices, &c. it appearing that the rail-way was intended to cross the Regent's Canal, immediately below one of the locks, of which intention the proprietors of the Regent's Canal had been apprized only last week.
§ The Speakersaid, that, as this petition 663 related to a subject of great importance, and one respecting which the House, and, through the House, the public, ought to know what was to be the exact practice, he would make a few observations upon it. It was well known, that when a petition was presented to the House for a private bill, that petition was referred to a committee, to inquire if the standing orders had been complied with by the petitioners. If the report of that committee was, that the standing orders had not been complied with, then that report was referred to the committee on the standing orders, to determine whether or not the standing orders with reference to that bill should be dispensed with. It was also well known, that neither committee had any thing to do with the merits of the case generally, but that their inquiries were strictly confined to the question of the standing orders. The point which it was now desirable the House should distinctly determine was, whether, when a petition was presented to the House from a party adverse to a private bill, praying that the standing orders with respect to that private bill should not be dispensed with, that petition should also be referred to the committee on the standing orders, together with the original petition, and the report of the committee to whom that petition had been referred. It certainly seemed desirable, that the committee on the standing orders (which committee, although it had been instituted only last session, had rendered the greatest service to the public) should have materials from both parties before them, in order to form their judgment, whether or not the parties petitioning for a private bill, should be excused from an observance of the standing orders of the House. Such was the usage before the institution of that committee; and when the duties which had devolved upon it were discharged by the Speaker, who (at least he could speak for himself) always took into consideration the opposite petitions. But, above all, it was desirable, that the practice should be fixed and ascertained, in order that the House, the petitioners, and the public generally, might know whether the report of the committee on the standing orders was an exparte report, on which the House might afterwards pronounce, or whether it was a report, leaving (as he had before observed) the merits of the case wholly untouched, but founded on a consideration of the allegations of both 664 parties with respect to the expediency or inexpediency of dispensing with the standing orders of the House.
A conversation of some length ensued. The general understanding was in favour of referring to the committee on the standing orders, the petitions praying that the standing orders might not be dispensed with, as well as the petitions of the original parties, and the reports of the committees to whom the latter had been referred; but it was eventually determined, that the decision on the question should be postponed for a few days.