VOTES OF CHAIRMEN—COMMITTEES ON RAILWAYS. (Hansard, 9 May 1845)

§ Mr. Gisborne
rose, pursuant to the notice he had given, to call the attention of the House to the subject of which he had yesterday put a question to the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as to the system of Chairmen voting in Committees on Railway Bills. At the time he had put that question, he was not aware of the existence of a Resolution of the House in 1836, by which it had decided that a Chairman of a Committee should not vote at all unless the Members of the Committee were equally divided. Now, in some cases, the effect of that Resolution would be, that a Chairman would be precluded from voting. This did not seem a satisfactory mode of settling the difficulty; and, therefore, he was driven to look about and see how the matter might be otherwise amended. At first he was disposed to follow the example of the practice in Election Committees, and where the votes were equal, to let the Chairman have a double vote; that was, that he should vote as a Member of the Committee, and when, by that vote, the numbers were equal, that he should have the casting vote; but this, he found, was open to many objections; and to this one in particular, that it would be opposed to the Resolution of the House in 1836. Under such circumstances, though he would prefer the course which at first suggested itself, he would propose this Resolution:— That in all cases in which the Members of a Committee on a Railway Bill, or Group of Bills, shall be reduced to four, the proceedings on such Bill or group of Bills shall be suspended until the Committee of Selection shall have discharged one of the said four Members from further attendance on the said Committee.

§ Lord G. Somerset
said, that though he admitted that the present system was in some respects inconvenient, he doubted much whether the proposed plan would not cause a greater evil than that which it sought to remedy. The subject had been much discussed in the Committee of Selec- 344 tion, which was in general fully attended, and that Committee had determined that the best course to be adopted was, when the five Members of a Sub-Committee should be reduced to four, to let any disputed question be decided by the majority of three, thus leaving out the Chairman; for the general feeling seemed to be against giving the Chairman a double vote. The Committee of Selection had provided for the chance of two casualties out of a Committee of five, and, therefore, they made three the quorum. If the Chairman were to have a double vote, it would place him in a situation of anxious responsibility; for few men, if any, would like to encounter the anxiety of deciding on questions involving property to the amount of millions by his casting vote. For his own part, he should feel great distrust in his own decision when called upon to pronounce it in any such case. He would, under such circumstances, prefer adhering to the system as it now stood, though he would admit it had its defects.

§ Mr. Labouchere
concurred with the noble Lord who had just sat down in some parts of his remarks as to the defects in the proposed Resolution; but he thought that his hon. Friend (Mr. Gisborne) was entitled to the thanks of the House for bringing the subject under its notice. He did not think that the system ought to be allowed to remain as it now stood. He could not support the Motion of his hon. Friend; but if any hon. Member would propose that when the Committee were reduced to four, and that the numbers were equal on any disputed question, the Chairman should have a double vote, it should have his support.

§ Mr. Warburton
was of opinion that giving the double vote to the Chairman where the division of four was equal, would be the safest course.

§ Mr. Vernon
was in favour of giving the casting and double vote to the Chairman, who was generally the best informed as to all the details of the matter before a Committee.

§ Mr. Ward
hoped that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) would put his suggestion in the shape of an Amendment, as it would be most likely to meet the wishes of the House.

§ Sir G. Grey
thought that the public would have little confidence in the decisions of those Sub-Committees if the Chairman were precluded from giving his opinion, and voting on the subjects under dis- 345 cussion. He would propose, as an amendment to the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Gisborne)— That all Questions before Committees on Railway Groups or Bills shall be decided by a majority of voices, including the voice of the Chairman, and that whenever the voices shall be equal, the Chairman shall have a second or casting vote.

§ Mr. Shaw
seconded the Amendment. He had been a Member of the Select Committee, by which the new constitution of Railway Committees for the present Session had been recommended; and he had anticipated the difficulty that had arisen in the case of the York group by the Committee being reduced to four members. The hon. Member for East Retford (Mr. Vernon) had not stated quite correctly the practice of courts of justice where there were an even number of members: there they all had one vote; and, where they were equally divided, the chief, or president, had no casting vote; and there was no decision but according to the practice of the House of Commons. The Chairman (except in Election Committees under Act of Parliament) had no vote at all unless where the members on each side were agreed, and then he had a casting vote. In case, therefore, of an uneven number of members — as in the present instance, where, without the Chairman, they were reduced to three—he never could have a vote at all, and would necessarily lose much of his influence and authority. He thought, on the whole, the best way to meet the difficulty was that proposed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey), to give to the Chairman the double vote in the case of an equality of votes—and he, therefore, would second the Amendment.