HC Deb 20 January 1847 vol 89 cc166-70
MR. PARKER

moved the usual Sessional Orders, the usual Resolution for the arrangement of Public Business in respect of Orders and Notices, and the Resolution for Morning Sittings on Wednesdays, which were read by the Speaker and agreed to.

MR. EWART

rose to move the following addition to the Sessional Orders:— That Committees on all Private Bills, as well as on Railway Bills, consist of Five Members, neither personally nor indirectly interested in the Question submitted to their consideration. He considered that it was the duty of the House to take every possible precaution to place those tribunals which were called upon to decide upon Private Bills beyond the suspicion of partiality. The first step which was taken to insure the impartiality of these tribunals was the system adopted by the House, on the suggestion of Mr. Gladstone, to appoint five impartial and unbiassed Members on all Committees relating to completed Railway Bills. That system had answered most satisfactorily; and during the last Session of Parliament he made a proposition, which was afterwards taken up by the Government and adopted, for submitting all Railway Bills to Committees consisting of five unbiassed and unprejudiced persons. The question was, whether this system had worked so well that it ought to be extended to Committees on all Private Bills; and it appeared to him that the plan had worked so satisfactorily with reference to Railway Bills, that he was fully justified in bringing forward the Resolution he had proposed. He believed the public fully concurred in this opinion, and that they were satisfied the duties of Committeemen on Private Bills were discharged far better by unbiassed Members than by Members whose constituents were locally interested in the questions brought before them, and who were formerly placed upon all Private Bill Committees. He was aware that some hon. Gentleman might object to his Motion, on the ground that it was desirable that matters of local interest should be referred to Members acquainted with the circumstances of the different localities; but, for his own part, he could see no distinction in this respect between Railway Bills and other Private Bills.

MR. THORNELY

, in seconding the Motion, observed that the present system of conducting private business relating to Railway Bills had given entire satisfaction to the country, and he wished to see it extended to all Private Bills.

MR. BROTHERTON

said, that as the plan adopted last Session, of referring all Railway Bills to disinterested persons, had had a very short trial, he thought it was at present premature to extend the new system to all Private Bills. He considered that there was a wide distinction between Railway Bills and other local Bills. Railway Bills might affect a large extent of country, and that might be a reason why they should be submitted to an impartial tribunal, entirely exempt from any local interest or influence; but when the Bills related to improvements to be effected in towns, as, for instance, to the erection of markets, he thought that the local Members, or the representatives of the neighbouring counties, were as well qualified as any other persons to be Members of the Committee. He was convinced that the adoption of the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries would be attended with very injurious effects. The present system of transacting private business worked satisfactorily; and it was necessary in many cases that the Members for the districts which would be affected by local Bills, should be upon the Committees, in order fairly to represent the interests of their constituents. He should oppose the Motion.

MR. HUME

regretted that his hon. Friend (Mr. Brotherton) felt it his duty to object to this Motion. For his own part, he would state that he never wished to be upon any Committee called on to decide upon a matter in which his constituents were concerned. There were very often two parties in all these local matters, and Members who were not disposed to trim, sometimes did not know what to do. He did not mean to say he had never been in such a situation, but he thought Members ought not to be liable to be placed in it. He would support the Motion of his hon. Friend, for he considered that the measure proposed would give the country far greater confidence in the justice and impartiality of the decisions of their Committees.

MR. R. YORKE

cordially supported the Motion. To adopt it would evince a desire to render the honour and independence of Members of that House more unquestionable than at present.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

had always felt, and he still entertained the opinion, that it was almost impossible to obtain impartial Committees on Private Bills, and especially Railway Bills. He considered that it would be impossible to prevent fraud and partiality in such matters, unless all Members appointed to sit on Railway Committees were called to the Table, and sworn that they were neither directly nor indirectly interested in any railways whose interests might be brought under their consideration. He wished to see a pure House, and a pure Ministry; he wished to see independent men exerting themselves for the benefit of the country, uninfluenced by any private feelings. Till they had such a House of Commons, hon. Gentlemen might be assured that they would not possess the confidence of the country. He had lost all confidence in the late Ministry, and he entertained great suspicion of the Gentlemen who had taken their places. He fully concurred in the Resolution of the hon. Member for Dumfries; and he would subscribe to any Motion, made by any Member of that House, which would tend to purify the present system of conducting private business, and establish independent tribunals.

MR. W. PATTEN

thought the House should pause before it adopted this Resolution, and should give the system adopted last Session a further trial before extending it to all Private Bill Committees. He knew that some persons viewed the proposal with considerable apprehension; but there was great difference of opinion on the subject. He believed that the infusion of independent Members into Railway Committees had given much satisfaction; but, as he thought the experiment commenced last Session ought to have a somewhat longer trial, he would vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Dumfries.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

was in favour of the Motion, thinking that no tribunal of the kind could be too impartial.

MR. NEWDEGATE

resisted the Motion, mainly on the ground that to adopt it would tend to increase the expenses of parties concerned in Private Bills.

MR. BERNAL

considered that hon. Members would be greatly degraded if they were to be reduced to the position of agents and advocates of local interests in Committees of that House. The House last year determined that preliminary inquiries into local matters relating to Railway Bills should be made by certain public departments under whose peculiar province they fell. He believed that the only public department which had yet commenced these inquiries was the Woods and Forests. If, however, this system of inquiry were carried out, there would be no necessity for making Members of Parliament the advocates of local interests in Committees of that House.

SIR G. GREY

said, that great difference of opinion existed on this subject both in and out of the House; and, though his own opinion was in favour of the principle of the proposal of the hon. Member for Dumfries, he considered that great caution and deliberation were necessary before any steps were taken in the matter. The Railway Committees had worked extremely well since they had been reduced to five independent Members; but there was a great difference between the subject-matter of Railway Bills and of Bills exclusively of a local nature. It must be remembered that the change with reference to the constitution of Railway Committees was not effected by a mere Sessional Order, but was adopted by the House after a careful inquiry before a Committee. He saw no ground for believing, with the hon. Member for Warwickshire, that the expense of Private Bills would thus be augmented. On the contrary, he (Sir G. Grey) thought that money had been saved by the change made last year.

DR. BOWRING

thought the plan proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Ewart) judicious, but suggested the adjournment of the debate, for the sake of consideration.

MR. EWART

said, that if the Government would not oppose the reference of the question to a Select Committee, he would withdraw his present Motion for the purpose of moving that the subject be referred to a Select Committee.

SIR G. GREY

said, that the hon. Member must give notice of the latter Motion before moving it. If, when it was brought forward, sufficient grounds should be shown for it, the House would doubtless agree to it.

MR. EWART

asked leave to withdraw his Motion, with the view of giving notice of a Motion for a Select Committee tomorrow; but the House, objecting to it, divided on the Question, that the words be inserted:—Ayes 36; Noes 103: Majority 67.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A. Gill, T.
Allix, J. P. Greene, T.
Arkwright, G. Hume, J.
Bernal, R. James, Sir W. C.
Bowring, Dr. Napier, Sir C.
Bright, J. Osborne, R.
Brown, W. Paget, Col.
Christie, W. D. Pechell, Capt.
Clay, Sir W. Rawdon, Col.
Collett, J. Scrope, G. P.
Crawford, W. S. Sibthorp, Col.
Dennistoun, J. Stanton, W. H.
Divett, E. Trelawny, J. S.
Duncan, Visct. Williams, W.
Duncan, G. Wood, Col. T.
Duncombe, T. Yorke, H. R.
Escott, B.
Etwall, R. TELLERS.
Ferrand, W. B. Ewart, W.
Fielden, J. Thornely, T.
List of the NOES.
Bailey, J. jun. Bernard, Visct.
Baine, W. Bodkin, W. H.
Bankes, G. Borthwick, P.
Barclay, D. Bowles, Adm.
Baring, right hon. F. Brotherton, J.
Barnard, E. G. Cardwell, E.
Berkeley, Capt. Christopher, R. A.
Clifton, J. T. Lygon, hon. Gen.
Clive, Visct. Maitland, T.
Colebrooke, T. E. Manners, Lord J.
Compton, H. C. Maule, rt. hon. F.
Cowper, W. F. Morpeth, Visct.
Craig, W. G. Mostyn, hon. E.
Dickinson, F. H. O'Brien, A. S.
Douglas, Sir H. O'Brien, W. S.
Douglas, Sir C. E. O'Conor Don
Douglas, J. D. S. Ord, W.
Duckworth, J. T. Packe, C. W.
Dundas, Adm. Pakington, Sir J.
Dundas, D. Palmerston, Visct.
Ferguson, R. A. Parker, J.
Finch, G. Peel, J.
Forbes, W. Philips, G. R.
French, F. Phillpotts, J.
Gardner, J. D. Plumptre, J. P.
Gibson, T. M. Plumridge, Capt.
Goring, C. Reid, Col.
Goulburn, H. Rice, E. R.
Grey, Sir G. Ross, D. R.
Grimsditch, T. Russell, Lord J.
Hanmer, Sir J. Rutherfurd, A.
Hastie, A. Seymour, Sir H.
Hildyard, T. B. T. Smith, J. A.
Hill, Lord M. Smith, rt. hon. R.
Hindley, C. Somerset, Lord G.
Hobhouse, Sir J. Somerville, Sir W.
Hodgson, R. Spooner, R.
Hope, Sir J. Stansfield, W. R.
Hope, G. W. Strutt, E.
Howard, C. W. G. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Howard, P. H. Trollope, Sir J.
Hutt, W. Tufnell, H.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Vane, Lord H.
James, W. Wall, C. B.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. Ward, H. G.
Labouchere, H. Wawn, J. T.
Lascelles, W. S. Wodehouse, E.
Layard, Capt. Wood, hon. Sir C.
Lefroy, A. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Le Marchant, Sir D. Wrightson, W. B.
Lincoln, Earl of TELLERS.
Loch, J. Patten, W.
Lockhart, A. E. Newdegate, N.
Back to
Forward to