private bill. Now, to him it appeared that the difficulty would not be insuperable. They had frequently a great many election committees, and they found little difficulty in securing the attendance of members. But, according to the hon. member's resolutions, a person dissatisfied with the decision of a private committee might appeal, and the House had no discretion but to send it to a select committee, so that they were to have a select committee after all. It was propossd, that to prevent vexatious appeals, the person appealing should, in the first instance, deposit 500l. to secure costs, should the committee decide the appeal to be vexatious. This he thought was a course which the House had no right to adopt. It was, in effect, taxing the appellants to that extent; and if, as had been contended on a former evening, the House had no power to compel a petitioner to enter into recognizances, how could they compel him to deposit money? While he admitted that nothing called more loudly for remedy than the present course, with respect to private bill committees, he could not support the one now proposed, as he thought it would be worse than the disease.

Mr. Maberly admitted that some remedy was necessary, but could not concur in that now proposed. He thought it would be absurd to prevent members from doing that in a committee; namely, voting on subjects which they had not heard discussed, which was ever permitted to them in the House.

the bill was connected, he thought that, with the addition of sixty from distant parts of the country, an ample security was given for an impartial decision, and that from such decision they would have very few appeals. Some of his hon. friends had objected to the resolution which required a deposit of 500l. from the appellant, but he conceived there would be no difficulty in getting such deposit from any party who thought he had a good ground of appeal, and the same reason which would induce him to make the deposit would make him assent to its application to pay the costs, should the committee so decide. Taking all the resolutions together, he did not mean to say that they established a perfect system, but he would vote for their being tried, satisfied that they would be found a great improvement.

Mr. Alderman Waithman said, that as it was admitted that the present system of private committees was extremely defective, he thought the hon. member who had endeavoured to introduce some amendment was entitled to thanks, and he, for one, thanked him, though at the same time he did not think the remedy pointed out was such as the case required. Indeed, he did not see how the House, without passing a censure on itself, could sanction resolutions founded on alleged corruption in committees of its own members. He knew that in speaking of any thing which passed in the present parliament, he must be particularly guarded. He should be Lord Althorp observed, that it was careful, therefore, of what he said of the agreed on all hands that the present sys-living, but a much greater latitude was tem required amendment, and the question allowed him with respect to the dead. was what course ought they to adopt. It And, speaking of the late parliament, he was said, that the better way to proceed would complain, and that loudly, of the would be by a select committee on each conduct of some members of it, for their private bill. That, he admitted, would be very unjust and partial conduct in a commitan improvement on the present mode, but tee on a private bill. A petition had been he thought it would be extremely difficult to presented from the corporation of Lonprocure as many select committees as the don against the Equitable Loan bill, and number of private bills would require. It it was referred to the committee on that was said that they had no difficulty in bill; and though the preamble of that bill procuring election committees. That asserted that it would be a public benefit, might be the fact; but those committees and though the petitioners offered to were not often required. If their appoint-prove that it would be greatly injurious to ment was to run through a whole parlia- the trade of London, and had prayed to ment as frequently as committees on pri-be heard by themselves or their agents, vate bills, it would, he thought, be a mat-the committee at first decided that they ter of some difficulty to procure the at- ought not to be heard; and on the singu tendance of members. As to the nomina-lar ground, that the petitioners had no tion of sixty members from the counties interest in opposing the bill. How difadjoining that with which the object of ferent was such conduct from that pursued

go into the committee which he had proposed, and he would pledge his life, his character, his reputation, and every thing that he held dear, that he would prove beyond all contradiction that it was so. The worthy alderman was proceeding to discuss the conduct of the committee on the Equitable-Loan-bill towards other petitioners, when he was called to order. He spoke under correction of the Speaker, and if he was out of order, he regretted it deeply; for the subject on which he was addressing the House was of great import

that he was not out of order. A proposition was made to remedy certain proceedings, which he had not called by the title of disgraceful, though some other members had applied the term to them. He was only telling the House what the conduct of one committee had been, and in so

by the parliament of 1721, which had re- which he was alluding, supposing it posceived the petition of the corporation of sible that the members of it were directors London, and allowed them to be heard by of the company against which he had been themselves or counsel, at the bar of the petitioning that they held shares in itHouse against a bill of an objectionable that they sold them publicly and openlycharacter, as tending to injure the trade and that they adopted all the artifices of the city! How different was the con- which were used to give to shares an exduct of that parliament, which, on dis-orbitant value in the market? The case covering the improper conduct of some of which he was putting was not one of suptheir own body, as connected with pub-position, but of fact. Let the House but lic companies, had, notwithstanding the solemn protestations of innocence of those members, and their loud calls for inquiry, expelled them from the House! The hon. member then proceeded to comment on the conduct of the committee in the last parliament, on the Equitable Loan bill, in having at first refused to hear him, on the part of the corporation, against the bill. After having decided that the corporation should not be heard, except on one point, they afterwards heard counsel and evidence in support of the bill. Then, one of their members stated, that as theyance to the public. But he contended had heard evidence on one side, they would consent to hear him, but it would be only as a matter of grace and favour. He got until the next day to decide what course he should take; but the next day he came down and protested against that being conceded to him only by way of grace and favour, to which he had an un-doing, he had given a striking instance of doubted right. After this, he and those who attended with him were ordered to withdraw, and some discussion took place in the committee. So confounded was he by the order to withdraw, and the objections that were taken to this mode of proceeding, that when he was again admitted to the committee, after an absence of half an hour, and was told that he was allowed to proceed as matter, not of right, but of grace and favour, he protested loudly against the injustice of the decision adopted by the committee, and determined not to open his case in an imperfect and mutilated state. He either had a right to be heard, or he had not: if he had a right, he was determined to use it uncontrolled; and if he had not a right, he was determined not to act upon powers which he did not possess. He, therefore, thought it expedient, considering the circumstances in which he was placed, to withdraw; not, however, without protesting against the injustice of the measure which had compelled him to come to such a resolution. Now, he would ask the House, what opinion they would form of the committee to

the injustice with which such committees too often acted. Surely, it was not a deviation from order to enter into a full description of an abuse, at a time when they were seeking to find a remedy for it! With regard to the remedy proposed, he did not consider it adequate to the object in view; and he therefore trusted that the hon. mover would endeavour to devise something more effective. He considered that the exacting of 500l. as a deposit from petitioners, previous to the balloting for the committee of appeal, was a harsh and unnecessary provision. For instance, in the Equitable-Loan Company, which was put forth as a matter of charity, and as a check against the pawnbrokers, but which, in point of fact, was a measure of greater hypocrisy than any which had ever been previously brought forward-the petitioners against it might have spent 5,000l. in prosecuting their first petition, and yet, after all the injustice they had suffered, must have found security for 500l. more, before they could have applied for redress to a committee of appeal, which, in all probability, would act, to a certain degree,

under the influence of the former commit- | believed that a case had occurred in which tee. He likewise contended, that the the proposition for a canal bill was referred House ought to take care that its com- to a committee, of which every member mittees acted as much like juries as possi- was either a director, or a person largely ble, and exhorted it to devise some mea- concerned in the canal. In the county sure which would prevent the repetition of of Devon the number was 168; in Wiltsuch injustice in future. shire 194; and in Hampshire 234. So that the number of persons composing the committee on a private bill relating to Hampshire, was four times as great as that on a private bill relating to Staffordshire. That statement formed a sufficient reason for adopting some arrangement better than the present, and would justify them in adopting the three first resolutions. He conceived that there would be great difficulty in obtaining select committees, if they were to be chosen like election committees. In the first session of a new parliament, supposing there were ten election committees, and twenty or thirty private bills, it would be impossible for the House to act. It was therefore better to adopt the remedy proposed by his hon. friend, which gave to any petitioner who con

Mr. Secretary Peel said, that, though he was by no means so satisfied as the hon. gentleman opposite seemed to be, of the gross misconduct of the committees on private bills, still it was his intention to vote in favour of the resolutions of his hon. friend, as a precautionary experiment, for the present session, against any misconduct that might by possibility arise. He did not believe the committees on private bills to be that mass of corruption which some members asserted them to be. There might have been some cases, in which members who had not been present at the evidence, had entered the committee-room, and overwhelmed the voices of those who had been present; but he had not heard of any instance of gross injustice in their disposal of private property.ceived himself injured the liberty to appeal The worthy alderman had said, that as the last parliament was dead he had a right to abuse it; but, though that parliament was dead, the members who composed it were living, and he, as one of them, must beg leave to vindicate its conduct. What the present parliament might turn out, he could not tell; but with the benefit of the worthy alderman's bright example, he had no doubt but that it would be much better than that of which he had spoken with so much reprobation. Though he he could not agree in every point with the proposed resolutions, he must repeat that he was not unwilling to adopt them as a precautionary experiment for the present session. His reason for so doing was not founded so much on the misconduct of the committees on private bills, as upon the standing orders themselves. He disapproved of the method of referring private bills to the consideration of a committee formed of the members of that county to which the bill applied, and the adjoining counties, because the number of persons on such a committee varied very greatly. In the case of the county of Derby, the number of members for that and the adjoining counties, to whom private bills might be referred, was 80. In the county of Warwick the number was 87; in that of Leicester 69; and in that of Staffordshire 66; and he VOL. XVI,

to another committee. He likewise thought it right that of the hundred and twenty members placed in each list, sixty should be connected by locality with the county which the bill affected, and that the other sixty should be persons who were not under the influence of local bias. He conceived that the most effectual remedy to the abuses incident to committees on private bills, would be by letting the light of day in upon them; and that the appointment of a committee of appeal would in itself be a tacit correction of the evil complained of. He could not see how the long story which the worthy alderman had told them respecting the Equitable-Loan-bill Committee bore upon the present question; for he was quite certain, that if the facts which the worthy alderman had mentioned were correct, and had been stated to the House, he would have obtained an appeal against that committee. The worthy alderman had also objected to the deposit of the 500l. as a hardship; but he was strongly inclined to think, that if the worthy alderman had felt one half the indignation against the members of the committee which he had that night expressed, he would have gladly laid down the sum for the petitioners whom he had taken under his protection.

Mr. W. Smith said, that though he had

G

several objections to the proposed resolu- | rested upon the ground, that security was tions, he would support them until some demanded before the parties complaining better proposition was submitted in their stead.

Mr. G. Bankes suggested the propriety of giving a power to wave that part of the resolutions which rendered it necessary to deposit 5001. before any appeal could be made from one committee to another. Unless such a power were vested somewhere, some parties must be seriously injured by the resolution.

should be allowed to prove their case. The same objection, he conceived, applied to the resolution now before them. He knew not that the House had the power of enforcing any such resolution. If a litigious person were, after an award had been made, to bring an action against the clerk of the Fees, then the validity of this resolution would be subject to the decision of a court of law; a state of things which certainly ought to be avoided. For his own part, he could not conceive what right one branch of the legislature had to levy money in this manner; and therefore, he thought the hon. gentleman would do well to postpone the resolution.

Mr. Wynn looked upon the proposition embraced by the resolution, as similar to a case of arbitration, where the parties contending agreed to abide by any order or award which might be decided on by those to whom the matter in dispute was

The resolution was withdrawn.

Mr. Wynn said, there was no analogy between election committees and committees on private bills; for the questions submitted to the first were mixed questions of law and fact, while those submitted to the latter were questions of policy and expediency. He did not believe that any such extent of evil as was now pretended had arisen from the misconduct of private committees; and he was of opinion, that they were oftener prejudiced against advantageous bills than biassed in favour of improper bills by un-referred. worthy motives. It had been suggested, that the nomination of the committees by ballot would often exclude from them useful local knowledge. He was himself of that.opinion, and would have great difficulty in believing that fifteen gentlemen of Hampshire could legislate easily on the local interests of Northumberland. He conceived that great advantage would arise from acceding to the resolutions. At present it was prudent to bring them in experimentally. If, upon trial, they should be found beneficial, they might be made standing orders of the House. The injury done by committees on private bills was not, in his opinion, great, but the scandal of them was extreme; for supposing the committees to come to a right decision, still, if it were seen that numbers, who had not previously attended, flocked in to give their vote, it never could give satisfaction to the parties defeated by it, and thus became detrimental to the dignity

and character of the House.

The first eight resolutions were then agreed to. On the ninth being put,

Mr. G. Lamb said, he much doubted the propriety of this resolution, and hoped the hon. gentleman would postpone it until it could be more maturely considered. He understood on a former evening, that one of the great objections urged against the resolutions of his noble friend (lord Althorp) relative to bribery at elections,

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Wednesday, Nov. 29.

CORN LAWS.] Lord King said, he had some more petitions to present on a subject on which some persons thought that the less was said the better, but on which, in his opinion, the more was said the better. They were given to understand that no alteration was to take place in the Corn-laws till after the holidays, but they were told, at the same time, that some alteration was decided upon, though God only knew what it was to be. It appeared that his majesty's ministers had a good deal of difficulty in settling with their friends on the subject, and no small share in settling with their colleagues. One fact seemed certain; namely, that in whatever should be done, nothing but the minimum of improvement was likely to be adopted. Various reports were in circulation, some of which had reached his ears. One report was, that when the price of corn was at 55s. a duty of 17s. was to be imposed. For his own part, he would much rather it be left at the mercy of ministers, acting on their own responsibility, than at the mercy of so merciless a law as that. He believed there was a malignant party in the cabinet, who were hostile to all improvement, and at variance with their own col

leagues, whose schemes of political eco-subject at the earliest possible period after nomy they hoped would not take effect. the recess; and, though the measure would It was influenced by a good and an evil naturally originate elsewhere, yet he principle; but he feared that the evil prin- would not wait for that event to put their ciple would predominate. The petition lordships in possession of the sentiments of which he should now present had been his majesty's government upon a question agreed to at a public meeting of the work- so very important to the interests of the ing classes, at Manchester. It stated, that country, in the twelfth year of peace the greatest misery and distress prevailed, and that the cruel prohibition against the importation of foreign corn deprived the manufacturing classes of a market for the produce of their industry, while it increased the price of bread, only to keep up a standing army, and enable persons to escape from burthens, in order that they might be imposed on others. In conclusion, the petition prayed for the total abolition of the Corn-laws.