§ MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been directed to a statement by an eminent Judge in "another place," that in taking the accounts of a Railway Company in the Court of Chancery, shortly after he had a seat on the Bench, he found the item of £10,000 for secret service money paid to Members of Parliament, and that he was assured the expenditure had been necessary, and inferring that this was an evil requiring a remedy; and, whether he proposes to take any steps to inquire into the statement, and to vindicate the character of this House?
§ MR. HENDERSONsaid, he would also beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to a statement made by the Master of the Rolls in "another place," as reported in "The Times" newspaper of the 9th instant, viz.,
No body of persons were so incompetent to perform judicial functions as Committees of the House of Commons. Shortly after he had the 1743 honour of a scat on the Bench an eminent Railway Company having got into a dispute, he had to take the accounts in the Court of Chancery, when he found the item of £10,000 for secret service money paid to Members of Parliament—of course he disallowed the item—but he was assured that the expenditure had been necessary. Now, the scandal occasioned by the discussion of such a question in Court was a serious evil;and, whether he considers it to be the duty of the Government to request the noble Lord to afford such information as to the grounds on which such statement was made as may enable this House to make such inquiry in reference thereto as the interest of the public service in regard to legislation on Private Bills demands?
MR. GLADSTONEThe most important part, Sir, of the answer that I can make to the suggestion of the hon. Members is contained in a note which I had the honour to receive from Lord Romilly himself, and which, I presume, there is no breach of propriety in reading to the House. In this note he says—
I stated to the House of Lords that when the case came before me in the Court I stated my disbelief of any such sums being paid, and I disallowed the item; but that I mentioned the circumstance in order to show the scandal which arose from the present system of private legislation.The only question we have to look at is the policy of taking any step with regard to this matter, and I am met in the first place by this, that perhaps it is not expedient to mention in this place and at this stage the name of the case. We are also met by this consideration, that this statement refers to transactions which took place sixteen years ago, and the evidence before us is that a learned Judge has said that an allegation of this kind was made before him, but that he disbelieved that allegation; and then, that perhaps my hon. Friends have been to a certain extent misled by the report, which, as I gather, did not notice that part of the statement of the learned Judge that he did not believe the allegation. That certainly is a very material part of it, and putting these two circumstances together, the remoteness of the date and the fact that the learned person who repeated the statement said he did not believe it at the time, I do not, as at present advised, feel that it is our duty to take any steps in the matter.