BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—STANDING ORDERS.—RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 12 March 1888)

LORD STRATHEDEN and CAMPBELL
My Lords, the experience of last Monday has led me to think that it is not desirable to bring on a further Standing Order at an hour when many noble Lords have left the House who are competent to offer an opinion on it. I will, therefore, with your permission, postpone the Notice, but so as to bring it on before the 19th of March, when we are to have the general debate to which these questions are subordinate.

§ LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSS
said, he must protest against the course the noble Lord had pursued in this matter. The noble Lord had already postponed 836 the same Motion on two previous occasions, and now proposed to do so again. He had had considerable experience in the matter of the Private Business of the House, having served many years on the Committee of Selection, and he had come down to the House every night when this proposal had appeared on the Paper, and he thought it was rather hard on noble Lords who took an interest in the subject that it should be postponed night after night.

LORD STRATHEDEN and CAMPBELL
If it is the wish of the House, or Her Majesty's Government, I am as well prepared to explain the further Standing Order now as I shall be at any other moment. It is unnecessary to repeat, except for those who were not here a week ago, that I have only ventured to approach the Standing Orders in view of and in reference to the larger changes by which the House of Lords is threatened. Since I spoke on Monday last, in "another place" 162 Members, including a great part of the late Government, have voted for a Resolution which, if carried out, would exclude from this Assembly every one in it beyond the Right Reverend Bench, those who sit on the Appellate Court, and those who have been made Peers for their extraordinary services. It is, therefore, clearly time to put an end to all unnecessary blemishes. The case I have now to bring before the House is irresistible, and I at once proceed to it in detail. In the absence of a compulsory system, the material we have is not adequate to make up Committees on Private Bills of five in number. I am forced to touch on what occurred to me in order to put that proposition beyond question. When the present Government was formed, after the General Election, I happened to remain in London during August, and was asked to servo on a Private Bill Committee. Having consented, I repaired, on the stated day and at the stated hour, to the House to find it thoroughly deserted. With much difficulty I ascertained from an official who seemed to be the only one upon the premises, that the Committee had broken down, because the number could not be completed. There is no reason to think it ever was completed. The same thing may always happen at that period. It could not be arranged, however, to have three in 837 August and five during the remainder of the Session. The noble Duke the Chairman of Committees (the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos) must, I think, go with me upon this part of the subject. But I contend that three would be a superior tribunal as compared with five, having observed the latter much in both Houses of Parliament. It would be superior from the necessity of greater vigilance and more sustained attention which arises. On that point, however, men may differ, and I will not dwell, although much might be said, upon it. A Committee of three is far more attractive than one of five to those who sit upon it. There is less ennui and fatigue in proportion as more devolves on every individual. According to the late Sir Robert Peel, a Committee is a state of "intramural interment." But it is redeemed in some degree by the necessity of working in it. Setting aside the waste of men in supernumerary Members, there are not wanting noble Lords who would avoid a Committee of five if they could do so, and would be prepared to serve on one of three were it proposed to them. The facility of organizing Private Bill Committees would be thus increased not only because, arithmetically speaking, three is grasped more easily than five, but because a greater number is disposed to join the less than the more numerous tribunal. But there is something more essential. So long as five are requisite, there must be verbal application, as there is now in the House, to noble Lords upon the Benches; either from the Chairman of Committees, or those who manage the Divisions. The inconvenience of that system cannot be exaggerated. I have been witness day by day to the embarrassment it leads to. It is a constant struggle of importunity on one side and evasion on the other. Noble Lords are unable to engage themselves quite suddenly for a given day, and that without a certain limit, while they are unwilling to refuse the faintest service to the public. But there is a graver consequence to be ascribed to it. It is the powerful encouragement to non-attendance it occasions. When an Assembly of 500 habitually numbers about 50, sometimes being above that limit, but not unfrequently beneath it, there must be a cause for the phenomenon. The cause is quite sufficiently revealed if no Peer is able to attend the House 838 without solicitation such as I have mentioned. It is a system framed to multiply the absent as well as harass those who may appear. I recommend this Standing Order, therefore, first as calculated to improve Committees; next, as rendering it much easier to grasp them; and, last, because it takes away, if not the source of non-attendance, at least by far too good a vindication of it. That three would be a proper number is an opinion I have formed by much discussion with an experienced and well-known Chairman of Private Bill Committees in the other House of Parliament. I engage Her Majesty's Government not to oppose this proposition; or if they do, at least not to reason as they did last Monday against one thing, when I have reasoned in favour of another. I appeal also to the noble Lords who concur with me as to the vicious practice of making up Committees in the House, and making them of an unnecessary size, to express themselves this evening. The noble Lord concluded by moving the Standing Order.

§ LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSS
said, that he had been a Member of the Committee of Selection for about 35 years, and believed that the present system of having five Members on Private Bill Committees had worked well. He thought that five Members were quite few enough, and hoped that their Lordships would refuse to alter the number. The noble Lord who brought this proposal forward had, he was informed, never served upon a Select Committee.

LORD STRATHEDEN and CAMPBELL
said, the noble Lord had been wholly misinformed.

§ LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSS
said, that last year the noble Lord very nearly served upon a Select Committee. He thought the suggested number of three was open to many disadvantages, one of which was that if one Member of the Committee was a weak man he would always side with the Chairman, who would be omnipotent. As regards the second part of the noble Lord's Motion, what he suggested was the 839 course which was at present adopted by the Committee of Selection.

§ THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Duke of BUCKINGHAM and CHANDOS)
said, he had expected that the noble Lord in bringing forward this Motion would have stated some facts to show that the Committees under the present system had failed to discharge their duties satisfactorily; but he had not done so. The number of five Members had now been established for a series of years, during which the decisions of the Committees of that House had been received with respect and satisfaction, and he saw no reason for any change. While occupying the position of Chairman of Committees he had found no difficulty in getting a sufficient number of Peers to constitute the required Committees. There had only been one instance where a Committee could not be got together, and that was at the end of the second Session of 1886, when it had been understood that no Private Bills would be proceeded with. As to the suggestion of the noble Lord, that applications to serve on Select Committees should only be made by letter, and that personal applications prevented Peers coming down to the House, he had to state that, in reply to written applications he often received answers saying that the matter had better be settled in conversation when the noble Lord addressed next visited the House. It would be highly inconvenient to settle these matters entirely by correspondence; for it was often impossible to constitute the Committee until the probable length that a Bill would take was settled, as otherwise it might not suit the noble Lord selected, and until its character was inquired into. For a noble Lord might, owing to the Bill being connected with his district, or for other reasons, be quite unsuitable. Under these circumstances, it was found most convenient to continue the present practice. Written applications would, however, continue to be sent out. He hoped the House would not accept the proposal to alter the Standing Order.

§ LORD GRIMTHORPE
said, he agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Colville of Culross) that three was a very bad number for a Committee which had to decide upon evidence and not merely on points of law, like the Court of Appeal, where 840 it is convenient for the Judges to be able to impart their views to each as the case goes on. He had had occasional experience of Committees accidentally reduced to three, and he had always found exactly the state of things indicated by Lord Colville of Culross—namely, the weakest Member of the Committee in a very short time obviously became a mere cypher to the Chairman. Even with the still larger but worse number of four, which the House of Commons had been led to adopt in 1865, the same thing happened; and as the Chairman has a easting vote, there the result was the Chairman with his cypher was able to overbear the possibly, if not probably, greater amount of sense possessed by the other two Members. That number was adopted by the House of Commons on statements that a sufficient number of Members could not be got for Committees of five. But after the Session a Parliamentary agent amused himself by calculating what number of the Members of the House of Commons had performed the whole Committee work of the Session, and he found that the number was no more than one-fifth of the House, the remaining four-fifths having impressed the Committee of Selection that they were so overburdened with work that they could not possibly serve. He mentioned this as a warning to their Lordships not to be tempted into making any reduction in the number for a Committee which he was sure from very long experience was the best.

LORD STRATHEDEN and CAMPBELL
My Lords, I wish to make a statement in answer to the personal reflection of the noble Earl who taunted me for wishing to postpone the Notice. The three Standing Orders I proposed were all put down for the 5th of March, the day previous to the intended Resolution of Lord Dunraven. The first of them came on, but it was too late to discuss the others. They stood for Thursday the 8th; a large amount of preliminary Business rendered it impossible to move them. They were adjourned until to-day, when I was quite ready to go on with them. There is no ground for any accusation. I shall not make a long reply to arguments adduced against the number of three for Private Bill Committees. I never doubted that Committees of five were able and efficient, 841 but only pointed to the inconveniences they bring upon your Lordships. As Her Majesty's Government have given no opinion to counteract that of the noble Duke the Chairman, I will not divide the House. If the Standing Order was adopted, it would be a gain. If it is not adopted, that circumstance will strengthen the reformers of the House with whom I am far from wholly disagreeing.