COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.

HC Deb 19 March 1847 vol 91 cc203-8

MR. BOUVERIE

begged to ask the following questions, of which he had given notice, viz.—"Whether the Great Western Railway, or its agents, or the South Western Railway, or its agents, had been asked by the Committee of Selection to state to what Members of the whole House they objected as Members of the Committees to be appointed for Groups 5 and 6? Whether the Great Western Railway Company, or its agents, had objected accordingly, to upwards of 300 Members of the House? And, whether it was the practice of the Committee of Selection to communicate to opposing parties in any railway group the names of the Chairman and Members proposed to be appointed for the Committee on that group?" He said the facts of the case were these: The Committee of Selection on Railway Bills reported on the 11th of February, that they had grouped certain Bills into two sets, Groups 5 and 6. Group 5 contained seven Bills affecting railways in the neighbourhood of Windsor and Staines; and Group 6 thirteen Bills, specially relating to the west of England; and in each of these groups was a Bill belonging to the South Western and the Great Western Railways respectively—in other words, the broad and narrow gauges. On the 15th of February, the Committee of Selection gave notice that they had appointed a Select Committee to try the merits of this question, and they gave a list of the Members whom they had appointed for the Select Committee. That list was submitted to the Parliamentary agents on both sides—that was, to the agents of the Great Western and of the South-Western Companies. Objections had been raised by those agents, and in consequence thereof the Committee of Selection had discharged the Commit- tees originally appointed, and substituted, a fresh list of Members to serve on those groups. The Committee of Selection had asked also from two or three railway companies a list of the Members to whom they objected; and as, in his opinion, such a step was most derogatory to the dignity of that House, he had thought it right to put the questions.

SIR W. HEATHCOTE

said, the communication to which the question of the hon. Member referred, was not made to two companies only, but to all the principal railway companies who had Bills before the House, stating that the Committee desired to have from them what would have been of great assistance—namely, lists of Members disqualified to serve on groups, with the reasons assigned. The Committe, however, received but two lists, one from the Great Western Company, and the other from the London and Birmingham Company, with a list of names of Members to whom they had some objection. He knew nothing of those lists, which were sent back. The other companies found some difficulties in furnishing the lists, and sent none. With respect to the last question, "Whether it is the practice of the Committee of Selection to communicate to opposing parties in any railway group the names of the Chairman and Members proposed to be appointed for the Committee on that group?" he could say that it had not been so whilst he had been in the chair; and not, he believed, at any time. It was a course pointed out by law in Election Committees to call upon parties to say whether they had any objection to names. He was not prepared to say that this course would not be right; but he wan prepared to say that it had not been pursued by the Committee of Selection. With respect to the discharge of a Committee, that matter had been already brought before the House by the right hon. Member for Coventry, and he (Sir W. Heath-cote) had given an explanation of that matter to the House.

MR. ELLICE

should liked to have heard from the hon. Baronet the Chairman of the Committee of Selection a further explanation of the practice of the Committee, which he (Mr. Ellice) thought extremely questionable, and requiring alteration; for, unless he misunderstood that practice, if was this: After naming Members of the House upon a Group Committee, and having asked them whether they would serve, and they were competent to serve, and they had declared they had no interest, direct or indirect, nor any bias, and they had agreed to serve, and their names had been published as Members of the Committee by the tribunal appointed by the House; any of those Gentlemen was still subject to the imputation of being declared incompetent by reason of some interest, he having accepted the office, and being required to make a declaration, before he sat upon the Committee, that he had no interest whatever. He had hoped that the hon. Baronet would have acknowledged that it was an erroneous practice, that, without any reference to the Member, an objection should be permitted to be taken to him behind his back. In his own case, if the Committee of Selection had referred to him, and had said that some objection had been made to his being upon the Committee by parties connected with the Bill, he should at once have told the hon. Baronet whether the objection had the least foundation; but he had no interest or bias, and whoever had stated he had, must have stated what was groundless and false. He considered that the House was bound to protect Members who performed an invidious duty; and if the Committee of Selection had committed an error, the House should have an assurance that the practice would be altered in future, or it should be better defended than it had been by the hon. Baronet.

MR. WILSON PATTEN

thought the House would commit a great mistake if they did not place a great deal of confidence in the hon. Baronet. There were many objections that were not available in that House to Members sitting on Railway Committees; for instance, Members might have expressed opinions respecting a particular railway, which his hon. Friend could not be supposed to know unless the fact was brought under his cognizance by other parties. The situation filled by his hon. Friend was a most painful one; and if the way in which he exercised his judgment on every occasion was to be questioned, his position—already very painful—would be rendered more so. The object was to keep those tribunals in a pure state, and not allow them to be subjected to a suspicion of partiality; and if his hon. Friend had erred in his decision on this question, the House would allow he could only have one motive (to which he had referred) for acting as he had done.

MR. ELLICE

explained. He hoped he had not expressed himself in any way to offend the hon. Member. It was true he had spoken warmly on the subject, but he did so because he believed the character of the House was involved in the matter. He disclaimed any intention of wishing to cast any imputation whatever on his hon. Friend opposite; he disclaimed it the other night, and he did so now. He knew the arduous duty of a Member of the Committee of Selection; but he hoped that the practice of making charges against a Committee behind its back would not be repeated again.

MR. S. HERBERT

considered that there was no wish on the part of the hon. Gentleman with whom the discussion had originated to cast any imputations on the hon. Member. A misrepresentation prevailed as to the sort of objections made against Members nominated to serve upon Committees. The South Western had sent a list to the Committee of the Members to whom they objected on personal grounds; but they refused to entertain any such proceeding on the part of the company, and the list was in consequence returned to them. What the Committee asked for was a list of the Members who were disqualified from sitting on the Committees, according to the Standing Orders of the House. It was possible that a Committee might not know those Members who were directors of companies, and, therefore, it was necessary that such a list should be furnished to them whenever they required it.

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE

had explained, or intended to explain, as well as he could, that no imputation had been cast upon any Gentleman. The imputation, if it were one, was simply this, as he had stated to the House before, that it so happened, by accident—by an oversight—that the Members in a particular case had, with a few exceptions, been selected from one district of the country, who, and for reasons shown to them, they did not think were fit to be put upon the Committee that was to try that particular case; but the objection had no reference to any Gentleman's private character. Now, he must put himself upon the judgment of the House. His right hon. Friend had called upon them to say that what they had done was wrong, and that they would not repeat it any more; but so far as he (Sir W. Heathcote) could see, he believed what they had done was right; and this he must say, that if, from oversight, or from want of sufficiently early information, or otherwise, it should happen that on another oc- casion they should have unfortunately named a Committee, with respect to whom it afterwards appeared there were such reasons as in their minds would lead them to think they should not have appointed them if they had known all the facts before, then he thought it would be his duty to face the obloquy to which he was subjected—to face it in some degree; at least he thought he had given some offence, but he thought it would be his duty to look that in the face, and to discharge the Committee. And he would tell his right hon. Friend why he did not confer with any of the Members on the subject. There was no question as to whether this or that Gentleman was open to any influence: it was an objection applying to a certain line of country; there was nothing requiring any communication from them, and he had thought it better to discharge the Committee at once.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

rose, as a Member of the House, to state his opinion, though he took little or no part in those proceedings; but he thought it necessary, after the hon. Baronet's statement, to mention his impression on the subject. If the allegation was, that his right hon. Friend, or any other Member of the Committee, had some interest or other which disqualified them from serving, then it would be right for the Committee of Selection to have asked for his explanation, and to have heard him or any other Member before they came to the decision to admit them. But the hon. Baronet having stated that the objection was to the place that he represented—which was a fact no one could dispute, on which there could be no difference of opinion, because it was a matter of fact—he (Lord J. Russell) must say, that after the statement of the hon. Baronet, and feeling the utmost confidence generally in the hon. Baronet, he felt quite clear that the House could do no better than to leave to his judgment, and to that of the Committee of Selection, the future conduct of these matters. If, in a particular case, the hon. Baronet should think it right to leave out a Member, or not to do so, he (Lord J. Russell) thought he would exercise generally a sound judgment on the matter, and preserve the character of the House. With regard to any man who exercised those duties, he would say that he ought to be supported by the House in discharging that which must be an onerous duty—which was attended with no reward, but was often attended with much obloquy.

MR. ELLICE

said, the only question was this: whether the Committee, having been appointed after the fullest investigation, and named in the Votes, should be discharged?—that was the only question.

VISCOUNT SANDON

was understood to say, that so long as a Member of the House was not previously made acquainted with the group on which he was to serve, he had no opportunity of making any statement which might disqualify him from being appointed on that group.

MR. AGLIONBY

suggested that before a Committee was nominated by the Committee of Selection, some communication should be made to the Members whom the Committee of Selection intended to put on the list. He should submit that to avoid in future such discussions as this, a communication should be made to each Member, and an opportunity given to him of himself objecting to serve on the Committee.

Subject at an end.