PRIVATE BUSINESS IN PARLIAMENT.
AMONG the duties that overburden Parliament, and, as often hap- pens, sometimes compel it to be idle by throwing upon it too much work, there is no section more burdensome than the local or private business. The Peers lately were complaining that the possible search into genealogies of extinct baronies might impede them in their judicial business, but, if there were a thousand in- stead of a hundred extinct baronies awaiting the stray claims of lost heirs, the Peers would be scarcely so much hindered in their legislative and judicial functions as they are by the private busi- ness. In the Commons it is the grand excuse for the listlessness of Members and the paucity of imperial business done. Various
• causes have been assigned for this accumulation, as many reme- dies proposed. Some have held that the evil comes with the dead- weight of accumulation, the proper local functions of local bodies being brought up for execution to London ; and those who enter- tain this view would relieve Parliament by throwing back upon the county the business of the county, upon the parish the busi- ness of the parish ; governing those several sections of the United Kingdom by 'general acts ; and towards this view there has been a marked tendency in Parliament of late. Another numerous Class of Reformers trace the evil, and justly, to the exceedingly bad way in which private or local business is organized and. con- ducted. It is needless to go over the whole field of confusion, since some very few among the many facts will suffice to show the governing causes of the disorder, and the principles therefore by Which they must be guided who aim less at a reorganization of the system than an amendment of it.
The Lords and Commons are separate, coordinate, jealous tri- bunals. In some of ,their privileges they differ ; the Commons, for example' had no right to enforce the swearing of witnesses be- fore Select Committees—a defect which has compelled the Lords
to traverse the same ground of evidence on oath which the Commons have already received without that test of responsibility. From these differences spring two multitudinous classes of dis- crepancy. Separate tribunals give judgments upon the same subject-matter, the judgments being in discord with each other ; and this class of discrepancies again is multiplied by itself, from the fact that the discord introduced confuses the legislative mind, and induces each separate tribunal, in each separate section, or Committee, to invent judgments upon eases that vary from each other in every degree, even to the extent of total contradiction. Hence, instead of establishing precedent and principle, those guiding points of our legislation and administra- tion are annulled. Another cause of the same discrepancy has arisen from the want of sufficient training on the part of those who guide the Committees, especially in the Commons. The effects have been very serious. The impossibility of arriving at a judicial decision upon evidence necessarily gives a kind of li- cence to something that is like gambling ; and it has often been remarked that a private bill, a railway bill for instance, might be thrown into the dice-box of Parliament without the faintest power of guessing at its fate, whatever the merits of the project, until the Committee be formed, and then the list of names is deemed a sufficient index of the ultimate vote. Yet it is im- possible to say that all members of Select Committees are corrupt; we may assume it as almost certain that they do the best they can under the circumstance ; results so disgraceful to the Legislature being due, therefore, not to the corruption of the men, but to the nefarious nature of" the circumstances."
Even last session reformers were at work in the hope of pro- viding amendment : the House of Commons had a Select Commit- tee, and adopted some of its proposals ; and a member of the other House volunteered a set of new Standing Orders for consideration next year. Various proposals were made before the Select Com- mittee for the adoption of which, by the Committee, or the House, either conviction or courage was wanting ; for instance, to supply better guidance, it was proposed to have paid chairmen of Committees, but this, with other larger innovations, was rejected. The chief decisions of the Committee were, to limit the number of railway bills to five, each to be presided over by the same chairmen, who, it is assumed, will consult with each other so as to promote uniformity of judgments ; to waive the privilege of the House in having the sole initiative in the matter of imposing tolls or other payments for services to be performed : and to empower private Committees of the Commons to take evidence on oath. A proposal of the Committee that the Committees of the two Houses should be amalgamated was not adopted by the House of Commons ; but the amendments actually earned are likely to have these three gravely important results,—bills, although imposing tolls, can be originated in the House of Lords, more equably distributing the initiative ; evidence taken by the Commons may be accepted by the Lords ; and some advance may be made towards uniformity of judgments.
In the other house, Lord Redesdale brought forward the draft of further amendments tending to produce greater exactness and regularity in the procedure. The most important of his sugges- tions are, that all private bills, except estate, name, naturaliza- tion, and divorce bills, be deposited with the Clerk of Parliaments before the 23d of December preceding ; and that one or more officers of the other House should be appointed as "Examiners of Standing Orders for Private Bills," who shall certify that the Standing Orders have been complied with. These officers shall make a special report in doubtful cases, and leave the House to determine exceptional permissions where it shall please. And rules are suggested to guide any party in seeking for an ex- ceptional dispensation ; the statement of such parties to be in writing ; oral explanations to be received, but without freedom to travel into any matter not in the written statement. In the case of railway bills 8 per cent, and in the case of other bills 4 per cent on the estimated expense, to be lodged in Chancery ; with distinct statements to be required as to the mode of raising the money when it shall be on the security of rates, duties, or revenue to be created by the bill. These rules are stringent ; they would probably promote regularity. They do not go very far to meet the chief defects in present arrangements for ministering to legis- lation on private and local matters ; and it appears to us that their merit is not strong enough to bear up under the powerful pecuniary interests which will be brought against them with such tremendous weight.
So far as we see at present, the private and local legislation of next session will have to stand its chance in trying the amend- ment effected by the Committee of the Commons ; and while we have some hope that that amendment will be considerable we also hope that it will open a way to further improvement.
Previous page
