HC Deb 20 February 1865 vol 177 cc441-7
COLONEL WILSON PATTEN,

in rising to move the following new Standing Order, All questions before Committees on Private Bills shall be decided by a majority of voices, and whenever the voices are equal the question shall be resolved in the negative, said, that he took this course in accordance with a promise which he gave the other evening, when it was resolved that Private Bill Committees should in future consist of four Members. The practice which he proposed to introduce already prevailed in the courts of law and in the House of Lords. He understood that several Members of great experience objected to the proposal which he was now making. He brought it forward in the same spirit in which he proposed the alterations of Standing Orders, which the House adopted at the end of last Session—namely, with a view to save the time of Members of that House, and because it appeared to him to be the wish of the House that the proposal should be made; but he had himself no great feeling either one way or the other. If the House adopted this proposition, it would only be by way of experiment, and it had this advantage, that they could at any moment revert to the old practice without detriment to any party who appeared before Committees of that House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That all questions before Committees on Private Bills shall be decided by a majority of voices, and whenever the voices are equal, the question shall be resolved in the negative.

MR. R. HODGSON

said, he hoped that the House would not agree to this proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He could not help thinking that they were altering the Standing Orders without due deliberation, and with more chance of doing harm than good. Although the principle now recommended by the hon. and gallant Gentleman prevailed in the courts of law and in the House of Lords, he had never known a case in which the members of a Committee of that House being equally divided the decision had passed in the negative. Indeed he had been informed by noble Lords who had acted as Chairmen of Committees that the almost universal practice in case of equality of voices was not to take a decision, but to adjourn. He should prefer to revert to the old number of five members; but if the number was to be four, it would be better to abide by the Standing Order of last Session than to hold out to parties and counsel the temptation to be continually fighting to get the Committee into such a fix that the voices might be equally divided. He should oppose the Motion, and if he received sufficient promise of support would divide the House against it.

MR. ROBERTSON

said, that he should prefer to increase rather than to diminish the responsibility which was cast upon Chairmen of Committees, because he was convinced that it was by the former course only, and not by the latter, that the private legislation of that House could be improved. He strongly recommended the House to make the experiment which was decided upon last year. The Chairmen of Committees who were chosen for their fitness, had most onerous and responsible duties to perform, and the House ought to strengthen rather than to weaken their hands.

MR. ARTHUR MILLS

said, that when reference was made to the practice of the House of Lords they ought not to overlook the circumstance that in dealing with the Private business of that House great authority was left to be exercised by Lord Redesdale, the Chairman of Committees. In one instance in which he had sat as the Chairman of the Committee upon a Bill, the agent for the promoters afterwards pointed out to him alterations in about 150 clauses, which he said were suggested by the Lords, and upon his inquiring whether he meant the Lords' Committee or Lord Redesdale, he replied that in every instance he meant Lord Redesdale. When they were asked to alter their practice that it might conform to that of the House of Lords, it was important that they should bear in mind that their Committees had a practical authority to exercise and work to do. Having acted as Chairman of Committees, he could imagine the possibility of a Committee being placed in circumstances of great embarrassment by the Chairman being deprived of the authority which might lawfully belong to him, and by two members being enabled to neutralize his influence.

MR. BRIGHT

said, it appeared to him that there were two objections to the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman which were worth considering. First, it would have the effect of neutralizing the influence of the Chairman, They had been accustomed to believe, and he thought they were right in believing, that the Chairman of one of these Committees on Private Bills generally knew more about the matter upon which they were called upon to decide than any of his colleagues, and he suspected that that would continue to be so even if they were to reduce the number of members to three, instead or four. If his authority was neutralized he was afraid the Chairman would feel less sense of responsibility than he had hitherto done; and therefore, as Chairman, he would be less to be relied upon, and less useful under the proposed change. But there was another objection which seemed absolutely fatal to the proposition. It was to be presumed that parties appearing before a Committee to promote a Bill for any great public work, were engaged in doing what was likely to be beneficial to the public, and their proposals ought not to be suspected, or to be rejected upon inconsiderable grounds. According to this proposal, however, any great measure which might have taken many months to prepare, which might have involved a vast expenditure and engaged the labours of the most able men in many departments of science, would, if two members of the Committee voted against it, be rejected, although an equal number voted for it. In his opinion the presumption of a Committee in the case of equal division ought to be in favour of the measure which was before the Committee, as one which was calculated to be of public advantage; and the acceptance of a contrary presumption would be a manifest injustice to the great engineering interest, and to those who were engaged in directing the enterprise of the country, as it would infer that a measure which they sought to have decided in their favour, was one which a Committee ought to reject. In his opinion, the number four was a clumsy one to deal with matters of this kind, and no reasonable argument had been given for having four members instead of five, except that the House had undertaken more business than it could properly carry through. As the number was to be four he should certainly vote against this proposition of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, which might lead to the rejection of some great and useful enterprise, because two members out of the four, for some cause or other, did not think fit to vote in its favour.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, that for his own part he was sorry that the number of the Committees on Private Bills had ever been changed from five. He was still strongly in favour of a Committee of five. What was the position of the Chairman in a Committee of that number?—because the influence to be possessed by the Chairman was now the question at issue. The Chairman was in the position that in order that his opinion should prevail he should get two out of four Members to agree with him; while in the case of a Committee of four he must get two out of three to agree with him, so that if he were in the latter instance to have only a single vote, as in a Committee composed of five, the chance of his moral influence prevailing would be diminished, inasmuch as he would find it more difficult to get two men to agree with him out of three than out of four. Now, it was not, so far as he could see, the wish of the House to lessen the influence of the Chairman, who, as a general rule, might be presumed to have more experience than the other Members of the Committee. The question was how this influence was to be made up to him. He saw no other way in which that influence could be upheld in a Committee of four than by giving him a second vote in the event of there being an equality of voices. Therefore, much as he was disposed on all occasions to agree with the hon. and gallant Member he thought on the whole the argument prevailed for giving the Chairman a casting vote. If in those cases in which there happened to be that equality it was to be considered that no decision at all had been arrived at, an obstructive effect would, he thought, be produced; nor could he admit that when a Committee of four had been agreed to by the House there had been any general understanding that the Chairman was to have only a single vote.

MR. CHARLES FORSTER

thought the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Arthur Mills) was scarcely correct when he said that the Motion had been brought forward with the view to assimilate the practice of the House of Commons to that of the House of Lords. It was brought forward rather to carry into effect a promise which the hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire had made on a previous occasion when the Motion for the substitution of the number three for four was rejected—a Motion which he regretted to say he did not succeed in getting the House to adopt.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

asked why the Chairman should not have a casting vote in the present instance as well as in the case of other proceedings before the House? With a Committee of five, if one Member was prevented from attending the inquiry was conducted by four Members and the Chairman had a casting vote; and he did not see any reason for adopting any other practice when four was the original number. If that privilege were not accorded to him, an ingenious Chairman might secure a decision in accordance with his views by the mode in which he might put the Question. Suppose he were anxious that a clause should stand, and that he put the Question thus, "That this clause be struck out," the decision, being in the negative in the event of there being an equality of votes, would be in his favour. He considered three a better tribunal than four, but as that number was fixed at four he saw no reason for departing from their usual practice of giving a casting vote to the Chairman.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

thought it extremely probable the House would find it expedient to return to five, which was much better than the number four, or adopt the proposition of the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Charles Forster) and fix the number at three.

MR. PEACOCKE

said, all this discussion would have been avoided if the House had agreed to a Committee of three, and he believed the House had been induced to reject the Motion of the hon. Member for Walsall on the understanding that the proposition of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Lancashire was to be agreed to. It now appeared, however, that whatever influence his hon. and gallant Friend might have with the President of the Board of Trade, the influence of the hon. Member for Birmingham was still greater, for the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have departed from the views which he held on a former occasion, when he professed to regard the respective merits of three and four as a sort of Schleswig-Holstein question, and to be rather in favour of such a proposal as that under discussion.

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID

was of opinion that if the Motion before the House were adopted the House would not be laying down a rule for the guidance of Committees, but rather raising a number of points tending to embarrass them. The result, indeed, would be that, unless a regular code as to the manner in which the proceedings should be conducted and the Question put were drawn up, the Chairman would get back in an indirect way that influence of which it was now sought to deprive him. During the last week, he might add, the Chairman of Ways and Means, under a power given him by a Standing Order of last year, had issued certain regulations, in accordance with which he would have a casting vote in the event of there being an equality of voices among the Referees on Private Bills. If, therefore, the present proposal were agreed to the House would be making inconsistent and conflicting rules with regard to the transaction of Private business.

COLONEL WILSON PATTEN

said, it was only a Chairman utterly unacquainted with the rules and mode of putting Questions in the House who would act in the manner suggested by the hon. Member, seeing that it was the duty of the Chairman to be guided by the rules of the House in that matter. The only reason for changing the system of the House in these matters was, that in practice it had been found by the Committee of Selection so extremely difficult to obtain five Members to serve upon each Committee that it became necessary to consider whether it was absolutely requisite to adhere to that number. A great deal was to be said in favour of both views, but the House last Session adopted the Resolution for the reduction of the number by a considerable majority. From the expressions of opinion now put forward, however, it seemed that there were many who were strongly in favour of going back to the number five; and if that view should prevail, if hon. Members thought that the Private Bills could not be properly entertained by a less number, by all means let that course be adopted. He must say, however, as Chairman of the Committee of Selection, that their duties in framing the Committees would be very considerably increased. If he were quite certain that Committees composed of three Members would be fully attended in every case, he should be willing to vote for three as a proper number. But knowing the enormous amount of capital with which the Committees were called on to deal, he was quite certain that the large companies, having enormous interests at stake, would not be satisfied if by any accident the number were reduced to two. With two Members, the House must bear in mind that all the objections urged against the casting vote of the Chairman applied with still greater effect. He entirely disclaimed any personal feeling on this question. His only object was to get the Private business as satisfactorily disposed of as possible, with the least practicable expense to the parties, and the least practicable inconvenience to hon. Members.

MR. BONHAM-CARTER

said, the mass of Private business had certainly worn a sufficiently alarming appearance to justify the hon. and gallant Gentleman in entertaining the subject originally, but he was not without hope that the difficulty would prove less overwhelming than he anticipated. Having to choose between two inconveniences arising under the new system, he should give his voice in favour of the Chairman's casting vote.

Question put, and negatived.

Standing Order No. 87 read, and amended, by leaving out the words "Chairman of Ways and Means," and inserting the words "Referees on Private Bills," instead thereof.

Standing Order No. 125 read, and amended, by leaving out the words "Chairman of Ways and Means," and inserting the words "Referees on Private Bills," instead thereof; and by leaving out the word "he," and inserting the word "they," instead thereof.

Standing Order No. 128 read, and amended, by leaving out the words "Chairman of Ways and Means," and inserting the words "Referees on Private Bills," instead thereof; and by leaving out the word "he," and inserting the word "they," instead thereof.—(Colonel Wilson Patten.)

Back to