SECOND READING. ADJOUENED DEBATE. FIEST NIGHT. (Hansard, 11 March 1861)

§ MR. ROUPELL
Sir, I rise upon a question of privilege, and I beg to move that the order for the Second Reading of this Bill be discharged. My name is placed upon the back of this Great Dover Road Bill, and it is there placed without my sanction, and I must at the same time say that an unwarrantable liberty has been also taken with the name of the hon. Gentleman who is my colleague. My attention was first drawn to the matter by the remonstrances of my constituents, who naturally felt themselves very much aggrieved that I, who am opposed to the imposition of tolls in large towns, should here be fathering a measure which would inflict a continuance of a very great evil. I have received deputations from my constituents, and have had to give personal explanations, and I have found myself committed to a very animated correspondence upon the subject. I should observe that the agents connected with this Bill, and entrusted with its management in its passage through this House, have apologized to me for their inadvertence in using my name without my permission; but I feel that my duty to the House and to my constituents compels me to the course which I now follow in moving 1712 the rejection of this Bill, which has been foisted upon the House in a surreptitious manner, and I hope the House will support me in what I now propose in behalf of my constituents, and I trust the House will never suffer their interests to be injured by such a measure as this.

MR. WILLIAMS
Sir, my name has also been placed upon the back of the Bill totally without my knowledge. No intimation of any sort was given to me respecting the Bill until I saw it in the Votes, and saw that my name was made use of as having been one of the promoters of the Bill. Now, Sir, I consider that taking such liberties with the names of Members is not justifiable. I have got into some little trouble, though not very material, in consequence of it. If the Parliamentary agents had asked my leave, I certainly would have refused it, because it is a very important question to a very large number of my constituents. It interferes most materially with the convenience of a very numerous and populous neighbourhood; but as my hon. Colleague has already stated the circumstances to the House I will not now repeat them.

§ MR. MASSEY
Mr. Speaker, after the statements which have been made by the two hon. Members for Lambeth, the House will see that it is hardly possible to proceed further with this Bill. I should be sorry to use harsh language, and in saying, therefore, that these parties have committed a fraud upon the House, I do not mean to impute to them any moral delinquency; but I do mean to impute to them gross negligence, which, in the language of the profession to which I am accustomed, would be denominated a fraud. I think that the House cannot be too circumspect in maintaining its privileges. Such a case as a Bill introduced into this House with the names of hon. Gentlemen upon it whose consent has not been obtained, is so gross an irregularity that I think it will be quite impossible that the House can hesitate for a moment in taking the course which has been suggested by the hon. Member for Lambeth who first spoke. Therefore, Sir, as the hon. Member has not put his Motion in express terms, I beg leave to move that the order for the second reading of this Bill be discharged.

§ COLONEL WILSON PATTEN
Sir, I am quite of opinion that that course should be taken which has just been recommended by the hon. Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means. But I wish to call 1713 the attention of the House to what I believe to be the real cause of this. Up to a very late period, the Rules of this House were acted upon in a manner which would preclude the possibility of any mistake of this kind being made, when each Member taking charge of a Bill, was obliged to come down to the House, and move for leave to bring it in; and he saw it through its various stages. But an alteration has taken place much for the convenience of hon. Members. My hon. Friend, the Member for Walsall (Mr. Forster), takes charge of a great many private Bills and moves their introduction; and the error with regard to this Bill has thus occurred. If the hon. Member opposite, following the former rules of the House, had moved the introduction of the Bill himself, he must have been previously applied to by the promoters of the Bill, and would have said Yes or No to the question whether he would have his name on the back of the Bill. Hon. Members are very much indebted to the hon. Member for Walsall for what he has done. But the custom is liable to some disadvantage and inconvenience in this respect; and I would beg to suggest that if that custom be continued the hon. Member should be furnished with some certificate from hon. Members stating that they have consented to have their names placed on such Bills. I am informed that this error has arisen from some person in connection with the agent for the Bill undertaking to get the assent of two hon. Members to take charge of the Bill: that that person omitted to do so, and that the agent himself, believing that it had been done, placed the names on the back of the Bill. I am told that is the case; but whether it is so or not, I beg to suggest to the House that for the future, the possibility of a similar inconvenience should be avoided by the hon. Member for Walsall, if he is good enough to take the trouble for hon. Members, being furnished with certificates that their names are accurately affixed to the back of the Bill.

§ COLONEL FRENCH
I do not think that there will be any necessity for taking any such step as has been suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend. I think that the present example which the House are about to make will be quite sufficient, and that no Parliamentary agent will ever be guilty of the same delinquency again.

MR. FORSTER
I thank my hon. Friend, the Member for Lambeth, for 1714 bringing this matter forward. As the House are aware, I receive some hundreds of Bills, containing the names of Members on the back, on the faith that they are bond fide placed there. Of course it is impossible that I can make any investigation as to whether they are placed there with the consent of hon. Members. I should be glad if the susrsestions of the hon. Member for North Lancashire could be carried out; but this is the first time that the irregularity has occurred, and I believe it will be the last.

§ MR. LOCKE
Sir, with regard to these Road Bills, when it is necessary to have a Road Bill, the hon. Member for the particular district to which the Bill relates is always applied to to let his name be placed upon the back of the Bill. I have been applied to on several occasions, and have been told that it is merely a matter of form. Of course I have invariably resisted it, and have never allowed my name to be placed upon the back of any Bill until I have had that Bill submitted to me, not only for the sake of the House, but for my own sake; because it is a very disagreeable thing to have your name put upon the back of a Bill which is very unpopular in the borough which you may have the honour to represent; and I always find that if it is a very unpopular and bad Bill my name is requested—otherwise the name of any Gentleman will do. Now, this was a Bill opposed upon principle by everybody throughout the borough of Southwark, and likewise the borough of Lambeth; and there was a very sufficient reason indeed why my hon. Friends the Members for Lambeth were not duly advised that this Bill was about to be brought in; and had it not been for the petitions of the inhabitants of those boroughs, this Bill would have passed through as a matter of course, and no notice would have been taken of it.

§ LORD HOTHAM
Sir, I would beg to observe that whenever I have given my consent to any of my constituents who ask me to bring in their Bill, I consider that it is part of my duty to carry out my engagement to bring in the Bill, and to carry it myself through its several stages. My hon. Friend, the Member for North Lancashire, has suggested that all hon. Gentlemen should give to the hon. Member for Walsall, who is kind enough to bring Bills into the House, a notification that they are willing that he should take charge of their Bills. I suggest whether it would not be 1715 better that the name of the hon. Member for Walsall himself should be placed on the back of such Bills—it would be no more trouble to himself, and it would obviate the necessity of communications being made to all the Members concerned.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I have to inform the House that I have made inquiries into this matter, as I engaged to do on Thursday last. I have seen the agents, and fully informed myself of all that has taken place. I will not trouble the House further than to state that, in my opinion, negligence, and I am afraid I must add, culpable negligence, has been shown by the agents; and I do not see that the House can pursue any other course than that which is now recommended, that the Order should be discharged. At the same time, with regard to the suggestion which has been made by the hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire, I think the course which is at present pursued is the best course, and the correct course; that the Parliamentary agent should be held responsible for this, as for other points of Order. I do not think it at all necessary that the hon. Member for Walsall who moves the Bills, with great convenience to the House, should have the trouble of ascertaining from each individual Member whether his name has been by consent inscribed on the back of the Bill. In this case, the Parliamentary agent has been neglectful of his duty; and the consequence is, I have not the least doubt, that the House will now proceed to affirm the Motion which is before it—that the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill be now discharged.