PROCEEDINGS IN COMMITTEES. (Hansard, 23 June 1836)

§ Mr. Hume
rose to move in relation to the Committee on the South-West Durham Railway Bill, the order which was then discharged. He did so because it appeared to him that the Committee in coming to the resolution they did had deviated from the rules and instructions laid down by that House on the subject of Railway Bills. The Committee had been ordered to re-assemble for the purpose of reporting to the House the reasons on which it had come to the resolution, that the preamble to the Bill had not been proved; and when it re-assembled, it came to the following resolution:—"That the reasons upon which the Committee came to the resolution that the preamble had not been proved, could only apply to those Members who had voted on that proposition." This, he contended, was limiting the number of Members who should vote in the Committee, and he called on the Speaker to say, whether such a power resided in a Committee. He also called on the House to support his motion. This was not a question as to the merits of the Bill, but one that regarded the proper course of proceedings in Committees. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that the Committee on the South-West Durham Railway Bill do re-assemble for the purpose of reporting specially on the preamble of the Bill, on the ground that their previous resolution restricting the votes of Members of the Committee is contrary to the practice of Parliament.

§ Mr. Rigby Wason
would move as an amendment the following Resolution— "That when any party has just reason to complain of the conduct of the Members of a Committee upon any Private Bill, the proper remedy, according to precedent and authority, is to appeal to the House for a Committee of Appeal." He con tended that the admission of the hon. Member, that this was not a question as to the merits of the Bill put him out of court with his present motion. His motion, under such circumstances, should have been for a Committee of Appeal. The hon. Member quoted various prece- 780 dents, and the opinion of the late Speaker, in support of that view of the question. No Members of the Committee had been prevented from voting by the resolution complained of by the hon. Member for Middlesex. He believed that this motion had been entirely got up by the attorney for the Bill, who could not get his bill of costs paid, and who was anxious to have such an order made by the House as would induce the shareholders to sub scribe an additional 1l. per share, the greater part of which would go into his own pocket. No injustice had been done to any party by the decision of the Committee, and the resolution they had passed had, consistently with common sense and the meaning of the English language, explained the previous order of the House. He would certainly divide the House on the subject.

§ Sir J. Graham
said, that having voted for the Report agreed to by the Committee, and having also been a party to the resolution of which the hon. Member for Middlesex complained, he should, nevertheless, vote for the motion of that hon. Member on the present occasion. He was ready to agree with the hon. Member for Ipswich, that the present proceeding was a novel practice; but the whole question of railroads was a novel one, and the instructions with regard to them had been sanctioned by the House. The Resolution complained of certainly only expressed a fact, for the reference of the House could not apply to Members of the Committee who had not attended and had heard none of the evidence on the Bill, for they could give no reasons for voting that the preamble was not proved, as they did not vote on that question at all. He had been, therefore, a party to that resolution, as he thought it a less evil than adopting the absurdity he alluded to. In common, however, with the hon. Member for Middlesex, he had thought it right to apply to the highest authority in that House on the subject. The question was, whether it were competent for a Committee to pass such a resolution, and the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair had, upon two grounds, decided that such a resolution could not be sustained.