PRIVATE BILLS-CANVASSING IN THE HOUSE.—RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 6 March 1876)

§ SIR EDWARD WATKIN,
pursuant to Notice, rose to move— That the solicitation of Members of this House to oppose or support Private Bills on Second Reading by Members connected in any way with interests concerned in that opposition or support, has a tendency to restore the evils which this House sought to redress by the present system of Private Bill Committees chosen by a Committee of Selection. The hon. Member said, he made the Motion in consequence of what took place the other day on the second reading of the Metropolitan Railway Bill, which was rejected on grounds which would not have stood for a moment the closer 1492 examination of a Select Committee. It could not, therefore, be denied that a great wrong was done by the summary and unjust rejection of that Bill. He denied that there was anything in that Bill contrary to precedent or to previous legislation sanctioned by the House. He stated, and it could not be contradicted, that not one word of previous Notice had been given of opposition to either of the two hon. Members whose names were on the back of the Bill. And why was it rejected? Because the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Claud John Hamilton) sent out a circular to his private Friends, entreating them to come down and vote against the measure, because it was to be proposed or supported by a certain Member of that House whom he named. He asked whether such a personal allusion was either usual or allowable? Why was it made? Simply to prejudice the issue. He was painfully conscious that in any question of comparative popularity he stood no chance with the noble Lord. He (Sir Edward Watkin) had led a hard and laborious life, full of conflicts, and he might, therefore, have many enemies. The noble Lord, on the other hand, moved in high circles, had charming manners, many influential friends, and had neither lived long enough, nor, so far, done anything sufficiently great or useful, to surround him with any animosities. The noble Lord was a paid railway director. So was he. The noble Lord was also deputy Chairman of a railway and paid in that capacity, the same as he (Sir Edward Watkin) was as Chairman of a railway. He (Sir Edward Watkin) had been elected to a seat in that House four times, and that was his ninth Session, and never in all that time had he solicited by speech or writing any Member to vote for or against any Bill which he believed to be favourable to or inimical to any undertaking of which he was a director. The noble Lord the deputy Chairman of the Great Eastern Railway and his co-director the hon. Member for Essex (Colonel Makins) marshalled their forces and defeated the Bill, and he wanted to know whether the House thought that was a proper course? If so, on another occasion, it could be done on the other side; and all the old evils of General Committees which the House had rid itself of years ago by appointing Select Committees 1493 would be brought back; dishonour would light upon the House with respect to private legislation; and the confidence of the public would be shaken in the purity, and honour, and honesty of its proceedings with respect to Private Bills. Again, such proceedings seriously affected the constitutional right of every subject to petition that House and to have his petition heard. In the case he had quoted a hearing had been refused not owing to reasons, or argument or evidence, but because of secret and private canvass by hon. Members distinctly interested in the issue. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution.

§ MR. H. HERBERT
said, he had voted against the Bill because it was a most objectionable one, and denied that he had been solicited to do so. The Motion was, he considered, the result of private feeling against the noble Lord on the part of the hon. Member for Hythe. It could not be said that, because the noble Lord had written to a few Friends, he had canvassed for votes, as the words were generally understood. He was a Friend of the noble Lord, and had never heard of the Bill till he came down to the House; but this he could say, that there was one clause in the Bill which was sufficient to secure its rejection. When such a statement as they had just heard was made, he thought it right that it should be at once contradicted. It was much to be regretted that almost on every Private Bill there was canvassing for votes. The system was wrong and ought to be put a stop to; certainly when it was done as openly as it was in the Lobby of the House of Commons.

§ LORD CLAUD JOHN HAMILTON
said, that the Motion of the hon. Member impugned the power of the House of Commons to reject Private Bills on the second reading—a power which he contended had exorcised a most salutary effect upon the purity and honesty of private legislation. If he were at 1494 liberty to go into the merits of the Bill in question, he could show that it was a much worse measure than the House thought it when they rejected it. He denied that the House had ever resigned its power of rejecting Private Bills on second reading. The majority of 65 by which the Bill was thrown out was conclusive as to its demerits. He admitted that he was deputy Chairman of the Great Eastern Railway, and that he wrote to a certain and limited number of his Friends sitting on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, requesting their attendance on the second reading of the "Metropolitan Railway Bill, promoted by Sir Edward Watkin." He was assured by high authorities that, regard being had to the glaring defects of the Bill, the course he took was straightforward and according to precedent, and he trusted that the House would acquit him of having done anything unworthy of the position of one of its Members.

§ MR. WHITBREAD
deprecated the course pursued by the noble Lord, and said that if it was to be resorted to in future, the time of the House, which ought to be devoted to Public Business, would be wasted and taken up by animated and personal squabbles on Private Bills. It was wrong, he thought, for any individual Member to usurp to himself the functions of a Select Committee. He hoped that the hon. Member for Hythe would be satisfied with the discussion, and not divide the House on his Resolution, because it was so wide in its terms that it would prevent any one Member from speaking to any other Member on a Bill before the House.

§ MR. RAIKES
took a similar view, and remarked that of late years a most objectionable practice had sprung up of soliciting the assistance of personal Friends in regard to Private Bills. If the practice were continued, he was afraid that the confidence of the public in the Private Bill legislation of the House would not be maintained. He did not, however, think that the course of the noble Lord in this instance was open to any special objection. It was to be regretted that the more important Members of the House seldom took any part in reference to Private Bill legislation, so as to guide others in the course they should take. He concurred with the hon. Member for Bedford in the hope that the Motion would, after the discus- 1495 sion which had taken place, he withdrawn.

§ MR. RITCHIE
thought that the rejection of the Bill upon the second reading was justified, and if no previous intimation of opposition had been given there would have been probably but very few Members present. The circular sent round had been sent more to secure an attendance than to influence the opinion of Members.

§ SIR EDWARD WATKIN,
while thinking an important Constitutional principle at stake, offered, in deference to the suggestions made, to withdraw the Motion. [Cries of "No," and "Divide!"]

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
hoped that the Motion would be permitted to be withdrawn, or a division might place them in a false position.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUER
concurred in the suggestion.