§ Report from Select Committee read; Standing Orders, as revised by the Committee, read.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he rose, pursuant to the notice he had given, to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Select Committee on the Revision of Standing Orders. He would not detain the House by repeating any of the arguments which he used on a former occasion when he moved for the appointment of the Committee. He would merely state that the Committee, after much consideration, resolved to recommend the adoption of the Resolutions he had had the honour to submit. If he could persuade the House to agree to the Report of the Committee, next Session, Referees would be appointed by the Speaker, who would have, in connection with Private Bills, to determine certain facts, the investigation of which would thus be withdrawn from the Committees of the House. There was some delay in coming to a conclusion, in consequence of the reluctance of the Speaker to assume the responsibility of appointing the Referees. The Committee were, however, so strongly of opinion that it was desirable that the whole system should be in the body of the House, and unconnected with any public office, that they renewed their request to the Speaker, who was then good enough to express his willingness to undertake the duty if the House required it. The Committee had made some alterations in the definition of subjects to be submitted to the Referees. In regard to the second class of questions, for instance, it had been decided that only the details of traffic should be referred to the tribunal. Although the Resolutions had not met with the entire approbation of all concerned, he was bound to acknowledge the spirit of fairness with which they had been considered. The Parliamentary Bar had expressed their readiness to give the new system a fair trial, and the Parliamentary agents had not only made the same statement, but had given him their best assistance in determining the various sub- 2006 jects to be submitted to the Referees. He inferred from the recent discussion that the disposition of hon. Members was not unfavourable to the experiment. For his own part, he would undertake, if the Resolutions did not accomplish the object with which they had been proposed, to save the time of the House and to diminish the expense to persons promoting or opposing Bills, to move their repeal at the earliest moment. He hoped, however, that they would prove successful. The Committee had agreed, not unanimously, but by a large majority, to recommend an important change in the Standing Orders of the House, that Private Bill Committees should each consist of three instead of five Members. He was one of those who had doubted the expediency of so great an alteration, and he at first proposed that the number should be reduced to four; but there was much to be said for the larger reduction. At present three formed a quorum, and as, under the new rule, the proceedings would be suspended in the absence of any of the three Members, there would practically be no change. Another alteration which was recommended with the view of expediting the private business of the House, and of advancing Bills early in the Session, was that the time allowed for petitions should be ten clear days after the first reading, instead of eight days after the second reading. There were some further alterations of minor importance to which be need not refer in detail; but, in conclusion, he would express his belief that if these proposals were carried out, Private Bill legislation would be conducted in a more satisfactory manner, and they would not have Bills delayed till the end of the Session, so that it was scarcely possible for them to be considered in the other House. He moved the repeal of the present Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.
§ COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he wished to ask, whether the object of the Motion was to give the House a clear sheet of paper for the introduction of a new series of Standing Orders?
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that was the object of the Motion. That course had always been adopted on former occasions.
§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHasked, whether the proposed Resolutions contained any provision to the effect that the Referee was not to be a Member of the House?
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that 2007 the Resolutions contained no such provision; on the contrary, it was proposed that the Chairman of the Referees should be the Chairman of Ways and Means.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he could not help thinking that so important a subject should have been brought forward earlier in the year, and be suspected that, considering the period of the Session, and the attendance at the Committee, they had arrived at what was rather a foregone conclusion. He confessed that he had no great hope that the new system would lead to any reduction in expense. He even feared it would be attended with the opposite result. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had, however, in some degree disarmed opposition by pledging himself to move the repeal of the Resolutions if they did not prove effectual in saving the time of the House and the money of suitors.
§ LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, that be hoped sincerely that the House would adopt the proposition of his hon. and gallant Friend. All the Members attended the Committee, and gave the subject most careful consideration. The Resolutions had, in substance, been explained to the House previously.
§ MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he understood his hon. and gallant Friend to undertake that if the new plan was not found satisfactory he would propose its repeal. He was, however, afraid that it was exactly in the fact that it was an experiment that the real danger lay, and that it might be the first step towards taking away from the Committees of that House their jurisdiction over Private Bills.
§ SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, he questioned very much the expediency of leaving engineering questions to be decided by Referees, and the other questions connected with Private Bills to the Members of the Select Committee. Experience had, he thought, proved that whenever the attempt had been made to divide a judicial inquiry into two parts to be dealt with by separate tribunals, the system had operated unsatisfactorily. He, however, did not intend to oppose the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member, but he thought that its practical effect would be to make these matters of inquiry more expensive and less satisfactory.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he wished to correct the answer which he had given to the hon. Member behind him in respect to the appointment of Referees. Now, as there was a small salary attached 2008 to the office of Referee, the Chairman of Ways and Means, who was to be Chairman of Referees, could not appoint a Member of that House unless he resigned his seat, he would begin by moving the adoption of the now Standing Order No. 7, which proposed that the numbers of the Select Committee should be three instead of five.
§
Standing Order No. 7, as amended by the Committee, read, as follows:—
7. The Committee on every opposed Railway and Canal Bill, or Group of Railway and Canal Bills, shall be composed of three Members not locally or otherwise interested in the Bill or Bills referred to them; the Chairman to be appointed by the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, and two other Members by the Committee of Selection.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the new Standing Order itself proposed to effect the reduction to three Members, and if nobody objected to it, the new Standing Order would pass.
§ MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, that such a reduction was open to great objection. In the Committee of which he was a Member that Session two of the Members were taken suddenly ill and were obliged to absent themselves. Now, if there were to be only three Members on the Committee, in the event of such a contingency, the inconvenience would be obvious.
§ Amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out the word "three," in order to insert the word "five,"—(Mr. Henry Baillie,)—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Standing Order."
§ MR. WATKINsaid, he wished to ask whether the reduction was proposed for the convenience of individual Members of that House. The public interest, he thought, would suffer by leaving Private Bills to be decided by Committees of only three Members, instead of five.
§ LORD HOTHAMsaid, he could not concur in the proposed reduction the practical effect of which would be that Committees would consist of two Members only! That would not be satisfactory to the public. He should not so much object to a Committee of four.
§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, it had been felt, in the discussions on that matter which had taken place in the Committee, that if they had Committees of four Members, too great power would be thrown in the hands of the Chairman, who would have 2009 a casting vote where the Members were equally divided in opinion. On that ground, after considerable discussion, the Committee determined to recommend that the Committees should be constituted of three Members. The most experienced Parliamentary agents were of opinion that as much weight of authority would be carried by a decision of a Committee of three as of a Committee of five. Under the system at present in operation, the amount of business to be done being so enormous, hon. Members had to endure a very severe demand upon them, and, in fact, that mode of carrying on the business was breaking down. The House must contemplate the alternative of reducing that pressure, or that of taking that business away from the House altogether. His noble Friend (Lord Hotham), he knew, had always deprecated the notion of taking the business away from the House, but, in order to retain the jurisdiction in that House, some reform of the present system must be adopted, which would give satisfaction to the public on the one hand and afford a relief to Member on the other hand.
§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he did not believe that the decision of a smaller number would carry so much weight as that of a greater number. He would also point out that if the reduced Commit tees were to be selected, as at present, from all the Members of the House, the inexperienced would rely upon the more experienced, and thus upon the Chairman of a Committee would devolve most of the labour and responsibility of the inquiry.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he thought the decision of a Committee of three would have as much, if not greater, weight than that of five, because of the responsibility being less divided.
§ MR. PAULLsaid, that in his opinion the House ought to hesitate long before it altered the constitution of the Committees Too much was made of the tax put on hon. Members to serve on Committees. No doubt there was some inconvenience, but so long as the House chose to keep those matters within their own jurisdiction, the only question to be considered was what arrangement would be most satisfactory to the public. If the number were reduced: to three, great difficulties might arise, I Should one Member he absent, and the in quiry proceed with the concurrence of all parlies, the result would be a tribunal of two, one Member of which would have two votes, and would practically have the case 2010 in his own hands. On the other hand, if, upon the absence of one Member, the Committee had to report to the House and take its pleasure, then upon the rising of the Committee the parties could not be told when the proceedings would be resumed, and the expenses of the inquiry would be going on, though no progress was being made. If the tribunal was to consist of four, the result would be almost worse, because one Member must then have two votes. He thought that with some of the new regulations and with others which might be introduced, the present odd number of five would give more satisfaction than any change such as was proposed.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that he had had an opportunity of hearing the Question discussed both at the Committee which had been held last year and at the Committee which had sat during the present Session, and he had come to the conclusion that the arguments were rather unfavourable to reducing the number so far as three. He believed that there was a good deal of force in the argument employed by the hon. Member for St. Ives, that in the case of the absence of one of the Members of a Committee formed of throe, through illness, the whole business was practically under the control of the Chairman, who, in case of a division of opinion, would have the privilege of using his casting vote. Many of the matters referred to Select Committees were too important to be decided by one Member, and the public would hardly think that sufficient justice was done to their interests. If they could secure the attendance of three Members no doubt it would be sufficient, as that number was the present quorum, He would much prefer the reduction of the number of Members on the Committee to four. If he remembered rightly, his hon. Friend the Member for North Lancashire in the Committee which sat upon the subject last year advocated the reduction to that number, although as Chairman of the Committee which had recently sat he brought forward the recommendation for the reduction of the number to three.
CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he hoped that the House would not agree to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, which would practically have the effect of placing the whole of the power in the bands of the Chairman, and reducing the other three Members to the position of dummies. He 2011 was quite willing to acknowledge that ability and intelligence possessed by the Chairmen of Committees, but he believed it would be very easy to find another half-dozen Gentlemen who would perform the duties of Chairmen equally well in every respect.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that he certainly had been in favour of four, but the feeling of the Committee was so strong against that number that he believed he stood almost alone. Under those circumstances, he felt himself bound to support the Report of the Committee.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he thought that the House hardly understood the proposition which had been made, because it involved not only an alteration in the number of Members serving on a Committee, but an alteration in the constitution of the Committee itself. At present the Committee was formed of five shifting Members, any three of whom formed a quorum, and the present proposal was that the Committees should consist of three Members, in the absence of any one of whom no business, unless the consent of the House had been obtained for such a course, could be proceeded with. The intention of the new Standing Order was that no one should vote who had not heard the evidence from beginning to the end.
§ Question put, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Standing Order."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 74: Majority 7.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, that the word "five" be inserted, instead thereof.—(Mr. H. Baillie.)
§ LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he wished to move that the word "four" be inserted.
§ MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, he wished to know, if it was competent to move an Amendment?
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he was in favour of four Members rather than of five, and should therefore vote against the insertion of the word five. He thought that the number of four would facilitate the conduct of private business.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, be was also prepared to vote for "four." That number would afford some relief to the House and also leave an efficient Committee.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, he would put the Question in this form:—That the word "five" do stand part of the Resolution. 2012 Those who were opposed to "five" might fill up the blank with any other number.
§ Question put, "That the word 'five' be inserted," instead thereof.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 87: Majority 32.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he moved that the word "four" be inserted, instead thereof.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, that the word "four" be inserted, instead thereof.
§ MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, he objected to the proposal, as he should prefer a Committee of three to four Members. In the former division the question was as between three and five, and he voted against three; but now he would, if it were competent to him to do so, move that the word "three" be inserted instead of four.
§ MR. PAULLsaid, he wished to ask, if it was competent for any hon. Member to move the insertion of the word "three" as an Amendment?
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, it could not be done. The House had already decided against "three."
§ MR. PAULLsaid, that decision was "five" against "three." It was then proposed to take the decision of the House on the question of "three" against "four."
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the word 'four' be inserted,"—(Colonel Wilson Patten,)—instead thereof.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 98; Noes 50: Majority 48.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that in consequence of the alteration just made he begged to move the postponement of Resolutions 7, 8, and 9, his object being to make them conformable to the Resolution already adopted.
Further Consideration of Standing Order, No. 7, postponed till To-morrow, at Six of the clock.
Standing Order No. 8, as amended by the Committee, and No. 9, as revised by the Committee, read as follows:—
8. The Committee on every opposed Private Bill (not being a Railway, Canal, or Divorce Bill), or Group of Bills, shall be composed of a Chairman and two Members not locally or otherwise interested in the Bill or Bills referred to them, to be appointed by the Committee of Selection.9. The Committee on every unopposed Private Bill (not being a Railway, Canal, or Divorce Bill), shall, if the same shall have originated in this House, be composed of the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, who shall be ex officio Chairman of every such Committee, to- 2013 gether with one of the Members ordered to prepare and bring in the Bill, and one other Member not locally or otherwise interested therein, such Members to be appointed by the Committee of Selection, and shall, if such Bill shall have been brought from the House of Lords, be composed of the Chairman as aforesaid, and two other Members, to be appointed by the Committee of Selection, of whom one at least shall not be locally or otherwise interested in the Bill; and the Chairman and one other Member of such Committee shall be the quorum thereof.
§ LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he wished to know how his hon. and gallant Friend intended to deal with the question of the Chairman's vote. There was a difficulty in the matter, as the Committees were to be composed of four Members. It would be objectionable to give one Member a double vote, and therefore he thought they ought to act on the maxim semper presumitur pro negante. The presumption was for the negative in appeal cases in the House of Lords and the Courts of Law, and he thought that would be the safest rule for the Committees of the House.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, his wish was to take the sense of the House on the Question, and therefore he would consider it afresh on the following day.
§ Motion made, "That the Consideration of Standing Orders No. 8 and No. 9 be postponed till to-morrow."
CAPTAIN JERVISasked the Speaker, whether it would not be competent to any hon. Member to move on the following day that the word "three" be inserted in the Resolution instead of "four?"
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, it would not. The sense of the House had been taken on the Question, "that the word 'three' stand part of the Question," and the decision had been in the negative. The only matters to be decided in connection with the Resolution were those of the quorum and the vote of the Chairman.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that believing that some time should be given for the consideration of the proposed changes, he would move the adjournment of the debate until to-morrow.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he had never heard a more unreasonable proposition. The three Resolutions which he moved to postpone were connected with the one just adopted; but the others were in no way connected with those three.
§ MR. LYGONsaid, he would suggest that Resolutions 7, 8, and 9 should be postponed till the next Session.
§ MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he should 2014 support the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster.
§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, the House had distinctly decided the Question that four should be the number of members, and he was afraid that having so decided they could not go hack on it. The Question of the casting vote of the Chairman was a very important one, and if Resolutions 7, 8, and 9 were postponed till the following Session, a new Standing Order might be framed, which, on a full and fair consideration of the subject, might meet all the difficulties.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he would have no objection to the suggestion of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie), but he did not see what was to be gained by it. At the beginning of next Session any hon. Member might move the repeal of the Resolution fixing the number at four.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he believed they had begun by repealing the Standing Orders, and, if so, they had no machinery for dealing with private business.
§ COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he thought it was not the fact that the Standing Orders had been repealed.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, he begged to remind the House that it had already decided that Standing Order No. 7 should be postponed till the following day. Then came Standing Orders 8 and 9, when it was proposed that they also should be postponed till to-morrow, on which the Question had been raised whether or not the whole debate should be adjourned. It was quite competent for any hon. Member to move that the debate be adjourned, otherwise the hon. and gallant Gentleman could go forward with the other Question which stood for consideration that evening.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he wished to ask, whether the Standing Orders had been repealed or not?
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, it had been proposed to repeal the old Standing Orders and proceed to the consideration of the new, but a debate arose before that Question had been finally submitted to the House; and, therefore, the House had not come to any decision that the Standing Orders should be repealed.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, it was necessary that they should now adjourn the debate, because they were now passing Resolutions which seemed to be inconsistent with the existing Standing Orders, and they would have two different sets of rules at the same time.
§ Further Consideration thereof, and of the Report of the Select Committee, postponed till To-morrow, at Six of the clock.