30 JANUARY 1841, Page 13

PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.

IT is scarcely possible to conceive any arrangement more open to objection than the system of Private Bill manufacture, as it ex- isted previously to the last session of Parliament. Members inte- rested, either directly or indirectly, in the matters referred for con- sideration, were appointed on the Committees ; where parties were marshalled pro and con. as local views, interests, or prejudices dictated ; bribes were offered and accepted ; independent Members, if any, were canvassed and influenced, with even more zeal than in election contests, because personal instead of party interests were at stake ; and, to show that other considerations than the merits of the case operated on the decision, Members were whipped-in to vote who had not heard one word of the evidence We speak of these matters in the past tense, because some attempt was made in the last session to abate this monstrous nuisance, and we would fain not deal too hardly with things as they are. But we apprehend that the parties to private bills in the last session did not practi- cally experience much benefit from the new regime. The vicious principle of selfish advantage governs still the appointment of the Committees. Mr. EWART has made a vigorous attempt to purge them, and, in the words of his resolution, to approximate them "more nearly than they now are to judicial tribunals, and exempt them as much as possible from all motives of local and personal interest." The plan he suggests, of increasing the responsibility of Members on Private Bill Committees by reducing their numbers to seven, and of taking means to appoint those only who have no interest direct or indirect in the question at issue, would doubtless operate very beneficially. The division of 24 against and 22 in favour of the resolution, though it has the effect of defeating Mr. EWART'S object for the present, shows strongly the sense of the House as to the amended system of jobbing private bills in Com- mittee. The principle contended for by Mr. EWART seemed, in- deed, to be generally admitted ; but the dilatory wait-awhile plea carried it against him. A "further trial" was demanded for a system which, being based on unsound principles, can never suc- ceed ; and on this ground alone was the more searching reform re- jected. When we see the House of Commons willing to acknowledge former errors, it affords a hope that by and by they may be induced to extend their views even beyond the resolutions of Mr. EWART, to a plan for conducting the preliminary inquiries of private bill legislation before a tribunal independent of Parliament. A sug- gestion to that effect was made in the Spectator nearly five years ago ; which we now reprint- • The initiated will perhaps agree with us that the slovenly manner of doing business has, notwithstanding the efforts of reporters, all the effect of "tyling" the lodge. " It does not appear very difficult or dangerous to transfer the business now transacted by Private Committees to local and competent tribunals. A Board or Council of experienced persons might be elected for each county by the rate- payers ; their duties and powers to be strictly defined by act of Parliament. fo these Local Councils might be referred schemes or proposals for building bridges, chartering harbour, dock, water, gas, and other companies. As some of these would frequently pass through several counties, the Councils of the counties interested might appoint delegates to meet and act in their behalf, thus obviating the necessity of introducing separate measures into each Coun- cil or Board. Questions of property, where the parties disagree, should be determined by a court of law. There should also be a right of appeal from the decisions of the Councils in case of an alleged abuse of their powers, and not to the House of Commons, (for that would be a revival of the evils which it is sought to obviate,) but to a legal tribunal ; which, with the act of Parliament for its guide, should give a final decision on disputed points."

Any proposition which seems to interfere with the authority and prerogatives of Parliament is sure to meet with strong opposition. Sir ROBERT PEEL, and the sham Reformers who find it easy and convenient for claptrap declamation to uphold the privileges of the " Commons House of Parliament" would loudly protest against delegating their power to another tribunal. But it is time these questions should be decided by the standard of common sense. The " Commons House of Parliament" should think rather of the public advantage than of upholding obsolete forms and powers, which now merely serve to clog their legislative labours. Each succeeding session shows more and more clearly that the business to be done exceeds the powers of either House of Parliament to get through properly, however it may be "disposed of." The delegation of these preliminary inquiries to other, and, as we contend, more competent tribunals, would greatly benefit all parties except the jobbers, and relieve both Houses of much un- necessary and wearisome work.