CHAIRMAN'S VOTE IN COMMITTEE.— TRINITY HARBOUR. (Hansard, 23 March 1836)

§ Sir Andrew Leith Hay
said, he had to bring under the 502 consideration of the House a circumstance, which, it appeared to him, required to be immediately adjudicated, more especially in a session where so much private business was before the House. He alluded to the division that had taken place to-day in a private Committee on the Trinity Harbour Bill. Counsel having been heard on the question of adjournment, the Committee came to a division. He (Sir A. L. Hay) having been chairman of that Committee, appointed tellers on each side, and then having quitted the chair, he had voted against the adjournment of the Committee. On the tellers having taken the numbers, there were found to be five on each side, including himself (Col. Leith Hay). He then considered that he had a right to give a casting vote as chairman, but was informed that he had no right to do so. The authority of Sherwin and another was in favour of that opinion, that the chairman could give a casting vote as well as his individual vote. The House would agree with him that that was a question which ought to he decided, and the practice, when once established, should be strictly adhered to. It was the duty of the House to decide what the course should be on all other occasions, instead of allowing the Committees in each session to make regulations which would be overruled in the next. If it had been merely a private bill, and that the adjournment did not interfere with the object of the projectors, he should not have pressed the matter further, but would have allowed it to rest there. But it appeared to him to have a very different construction. The question submitted to the House was discussed in the Committee, and involved an adjournment of at least eight weeks, as it extended to the 16th of May—one party wishing to wait until they had the decision of one of the courts in Scotland. The question he had to submit to the House was, had the Committee a right, from the usage of the House, or the practice of private Committees, to have an adjournment for such a length of time? He found by referring to the Reports, that, in the session of 1S05, in the case of the Committee on the Camberwell and South Lambeth Water-works' Bill, they adjourned for a considerable time, and were ordered by the House to meet again and proceed. Again, in the session 1825, in the case of the Bucks and Herts Canal, the Committee also adjourned, and were ordered to re- 503 assemble; and in 1835, in the case of the Medway Navigation, the Committee there adjourned sine die, and were ordered to meet again and proceed with the business referred to them. He, under those circumstances, had to more that the Committee on the Trinity Harbour Bill be instructed to re-assemble, and proceed with the consideration of the Bill.

Sir George Clerk
wished to say a word upon the question, as he was one of those Members who had been upon the Committee, and had taken a different view of the question from the hon. and gallant Member. He was surprised at the existence of any doubt on the subject, for he had never heard the right of a chairman to a second vote put forward before. There were other opinions of equal weight with those of Mr. Sherwin—there was the opinion of Mr. Dwarris, who said the chairman of a Committee was placed in the same situation as the Speaker of the House. In the case of Election Committees, where the Members sat as a jury, the power was expressly given to the chairman to give a casting vote in the absence of a Member, and the votes being equal. Now, if the general law had been such as laid down by Mr. Sherwin, it would be perfectly unnecessary to introduce such a clause; but, according to the opinion of all other writers on this subject, the Chairman of the Committee was precisely in the same situation as the Speaker. He begged leave to state, that in the early period of the History of Parliament a doubt existed as to the right of the Speaker to give two votes, for he found in 1601, upon a division, the number being, noes 106, ayes 105; the ayes knowing which way the Speaker's mind leaned, called upon him for his casting vote. Upon this being objected to, the ayes said that they had, by the Queen's pleasure, been allowed to elect a Speaker, and that he had the right to give the casting vote; the Speaker and Sir Walter Raleigh were of opinion that he could not do so. With regard to the other question as to expense, he thought that great expense would be spared by adjourning to the time the Committee had done. He trusted, therefore, that the House would rest satisfied with the decision of the Committee.

§ Mr. Thomas Duncombe
thought that that which had been referred to by the hon. Baronet was very much in favour of the decision of the Committee, The Chair- 504 man of a Committee, by Act of Parliament, had a right conferred on him to give a casting vote. In the Glasgow election that had been done. The noble Lord, the Chairman, then voted as an individual Member of the Committee, and the parties being then equal, he gave his casting vote in favour of the sitting Member. There were two points before the House: viz. whether Sir A. L. Hay had a right to give two votes; and, supposing that to be decided against him, whether the Committee had a right to adjourn to the l6th of May? He thought that the better way would be to decide first as to the power of the Chairman to give two votes; as, if he had that power, the other question would not arise.

§ Sir Charles Burrell
said, that the simple question was, who was to take the votes if the chairman left the chair? He had never known the chairman to leave the chair for the purpose of voting, except when the parties were upon an equality. He thought that, under all the circumstances, they could not take a better example than that by which the Speaker was guided in the divisions in that House.

§ Sir James Graham,
though his experience was not so great as that of many members whom he saw present, could confidently state, that during the period he had sat in that House, eighteen years, he had never seen a chairman leave the chair for the purpose of giving his vote. It was very desirable that, as the hon. Member for Finsbury recommended, they should decide these points separately. It was very desirable, in the first place, to settle the point of practice. As the hon. Member for Surrey had sat so very long in that House, and had very great experience in Committees, he would appeal to him to state what the practice had been.

Mr. Denison
concurred in the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Baronet opposite, and as he had been appealed to by him, he did not hesitate in stating, that he did not recollect an instance where the chairman left the chair for the purpose of voting, and he considered that the only case in which he had a casting vote was where the numbers on both sides were equal. That was the custom which he had always seen observed.

§ Sir Andrew Leith Hay
trusted that the Speaker would, in the first instance, give his opinion as to the point of practice, and he would then submit his motion for the Committee to re-assemble.

§ The Speaker
In this case there are conflicting authorities, and there is also, as I am informed, conflicting practice. The gallant Officer, the Member for Elgin, has cited two authorities, the one that of Mr. Sherwin, and the other, anonymous. On the other side, the authority of Mr. Dwarris has been cited by the hon. Member for Mid-Lothian, and also an anonymous writer, who takes the same view of the question. In number, therefore, the authorities are equal. But I confess that I do not attach any great weight to these authorities, because they do not rest their opinions on any rule or principle that can he adopted as a guide. The only safe and intelligible principle, as it appears to me, is, that Committees should be regarded as portions of the House, limited in their inquiries by the extent of the authority that is given to them; but governed in their proceedings by the same rules which prevail either in the House or in Committees of the whole House. This is the opinion which I have always given when I have been referred to by Members, and I believe that any other course would lead to a variable and uncertain practice. The rules by which the House and Committees of the whole House proceed are known, and an adherence to them leads to uniform practice. There is, I believe, no doubt that there has been conflicting practice, in this matter, in different Committees, and that has probably arisen from the opinion expressed by Mr. Sherwin. It is, therefore, most expedient that the future practice of Committees should be regulated by the opinion and authority of the House. For the reasons which I have stated, I am of opinion that the rules followed in the House, or Committees of the whole House, ought to regulate the practice in Select Committees, whether sitting on public or private business. The reason and justice of the case are also in favour of holding that a Chairman ought not to vote except when the voices are equal. A Chairman generally acquires some influence and authority in a Committee in which he presides, and if in addition to that he is to have always one, and occasionally two votes, he is invested, especially in small Committees, with undue power. There are other circumstances connected with the station and duties of Chairman which equally favour this view, but it is not necessary to dwell on them in a case which appears to be so plain.
The question was afterwards put, on the Motion that the Committee do re-assemble 506 which was agreed to, and the Committee ordered to assemble on the following day.