acquainted the House, that Mr. Hugh Adair and Mr. Hassard, Members of this House, having consented to serve as Referees on Private Bills under the Standing Order of last Session, he had appointed those two Gentlemen to be Referees, together with Mr. Rickards, his Counsel:—Mr. Speaker added, that he need not say how great a sacrifice of their time and case these Gentlemen were prepared to make in taking upon themselves the laborious duties of this office.

, in rising to move to amend the Standing Order No. 7, by substituting "three" for "four" as the number of Members to compose the Select Committee on Private Bills, said, the hon. and gallant Member!! for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson Patten) had last Session brought forward a Resolution with respect to the private business of the House, which was included in the Standing Orders, which he deemed to be calculated to promote the convenience both of hon. Members themselves as well as of the public. The hon. and gallant Gentleman in moving that Resolution, stated that the business in question had increased to so enormous an extent as to be beyond the working powers of the Committees, and that the Committee of Selection found the greatest difficulty in naming the Committees for Private Bills, and were consequently compelled to fall back upon a body of reserve, or rather he might call them a noble band of volunteers, who though exempt according to the practice of the Committee, inasmuch as they had already stood the chances of the panel, generously came forward in the emergency, with offers of assistance. The proposal, therefore, of the hon. and gallant Member was to reduce the number from five to three. Unfortunately, however, the number "three" was subjected to a sort of triangular duel on the occasion between the Members who were in favour of five and those by whom the number "four" was advocated. The result of the proceedings showed how a minority might by accident become a majority. A division was first taken on the question, that "three" be the number, and the Motion in favour of that number was negatived by a small majority, inasmuch as those who supported the proposals both for "five" and "four" voted on the same side. When, however, number "five" had in its turn been negatived, by the combination of those who were in favour of the numbers "three" and "four," many hon. Members who had voted with the "noes" on the first division wished to retrace their steps, while those who thought a reduction simply to four an arrangement full of inconvenience, yet, when obliged to accept it or to have no reduction at all, felt themselves called upon, though very reluctantly, to vote for it. In the course of the discussion it was ruled from the Chair that "three" having been negatived, and a majority recorded in favour of "four," the decision of the House could not be altered in the course of that Session; and it was to give the House an opportunity of escaping from the false position in which it was thus placed that he made the present Motion. A reduction to four, though a reduction pro tanto, was, he contended, not such a reduction as the state of the case demanded, when the great increase in the amount of private business in recent years was taken into consideration. The list of Private Bills for the present Session contained 595 entries. But the alteration of last year had given rise to another objection of a serious kind. Up to the period of the change which had last Session been introduced, the Members of the various Committees took their seats in the Committee-rooms under an equal sense of responsibility; but when by the reduction to four the Chairman obtained a double vote, a blow was given to that system of equality which was so intimately interwoven with all the usages of Parliament; the other Members felt themselves in an inferior position, and consequently felt a diminished responsibility. The House, therefore, in his opinion, by restoring the scheme of the hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire to its original shape would not only facilitate the labours of the Committee of Selection, but would, he thought, ensure greater attention and a greater feeling of responsibility on the part of the Members nominated to serve. Some persons feared that by the reduction of the number to three, great practical inconveniences would arise, and that stoppages would be occasioned. He would, however, remind the House that by the appointment of Referees the labours of Committees would be much shortened, and that the contingency of a stoppage was now more remote than formerly. In any case the House en dernier resort could always remedy the inconvenience either by nominating other Members or by ordering that the Committee should proceed with the diminished number.

thought the proposition made by the hon. Member would have hardly any effect in reducing the onerous duties discharged by certain Members of the House, and would leave untouched the greatest evil of all—namely, the manner in which the Private Business was conducted by that House. He perfectly agreed with the proposition made last year by the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil), that it was exceedingly desirable that there should be a tribunal external to the House of Commons to which the private business of the country should be referred. But, admitting that this suggestion was not practicable at the present moment, he would make another by which he thought that the duties now imposed on Members would be greatly diminished. For five years consecutively he had now been elected to serve on Private Bill Committees, and he did not think that could have happened, even with the admitted pressure of business, had the Members been selected fairly and impartially. The fact was that a large number of Members were not called on to serve at all. In his opinion, every gentleman offering himself to represent a constituency in Parliament ought to be bound to take in his turn the duties devolving upon Members of the House, and the only exceptions which he would make were in the cases of those holding office under the Crown, and discharging duties from which they could not escape: any other Gentleman seeking to be excused from attendance on Committees ought to produce a medical certificate of his inability to do so; and if all took their turns fairly, there would be little duty for each to discharge. He might be told that there were a great many Gentlemen following the profession of the law, and others who were attending to duties in the City, or otherwise employing their time more profitably than upon Committees. But if their private and public duties clashed, if they found Parliamentary duty irksome, they had their remedy—they ought to resign their seats. Last year, on one of the latest days of the Session, the hon. Baronet the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) stated that he had been for three years without serving on Private Bill Committees. He had heard, with his own ears, a Gentleman declare in the lobby that he had avoided serving on a Committee for seven years consecutively. How was it done? He did not say that the Committee of Selection had taken the names unfairly, but they certainly allowed a great many men to escape without, as it appeared, sufficient reasons. In the present Session there were between 500 and 600 Bills, of which 400 or 500 at least were Railway Bills; and the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin), himself the chairman of some railway companies, told a meeting over which he presided not long ago, that he was sorry to see such a large number of undertakings propounded to which there were very few subscribers or shareholders. The fact of the matter was that a railway company was got up now by an engineer, a speculative contractor, and an attorney. An old-established company generally took up the scheme, in order that some other company might not use it to their prejudice; but the public had no interest, and were never consulted in the matter—they were not consulted and were not asked to become shareholders—and there was no opposition to many of the Bills unless some other existing company thought that its interests were likely to be injuriously affected by the project at some future period. There were fifty-four railway Bills from Scotland, the part of the kingdom that he knew best, before the House this Session, and a great number of these fell under the category of Bills without shareholders. These could all be got rid of at one swoop by referring them to a Royal Commission. If a Commission of this nature were issued the members should be well paid, and it should be composed of men whose names were such as to give a guarantee for integrity as great as that afforded by Committees under the present system. The Commissioners would proceed to Scotland and take evidence upon the spot. They would soon be enabled to distinguish those Bills in which the public had any interest from those promoted by private speculators, or having their origin in railway rivalry, and be able to report accordingly. In this way, he maintained that the railway business of the country would be transacted with greater economy, and certainly with a greater regard for the public interests than is now practised under the existing system. It was, however, to be expected that there would be opposition to this plan from all sides—from railway boards, from speculative engineers, from railway contractors, and from touting financial companies, all of whom would be prepared to declare, and if necessary to swear, that the present system worked admirably. These were his views, and he did not think it mattered whether the proposition of the hon. Member for Walsall were carried or rejected.

said, that the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, whatever their merits, had little immediate bearing on the proposition before the House. Notwithstanding the great experience of his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. C. Forster), grave objections seemed to him to present themselves to the Motion which he had submitted. It generally happened that those investigations which occupied the longest time were of the greatest importance, and in such a case, where the Committee consisted of five Members, if one of the number were withdrawn before the conclusion of the inquiry, owing to the death of a relation or to personal illness, it made very little difference in the end, because the particular Member was discharged from attendance and the remaining Members completed the investigation. And this would still be the case if the number stood at four. But if the number were reduced to three and one of these were withdrawn, the effect must be either to reduce one of the two Members to a dummy if the Chairman retained his casting vote, or, if this were done away with, to bring matters to a standstill. It would be a smaller inconvenience that the Standing Order should remain as it was at present than that the whole expenditure should be futile, and that the parties should have to begin over again.

said, he could not regard the proposition now before the House as being materially better than that adopted last Session. The number of four was inconvenient because it was necessary to give a casting vote to the Chairman, and that was a very lame expedient for getting over the difficulty. He thought that a conclusive objection to the number four, but the number three was equally objectionable, because it gave an undue importance to the Chairman. If any one Member of the Committee could get the Chairman to agree with him he would have it all his own way. There was, in his opinion, no choice between three Members and five, and it would be much better to go back to the old number of five. That was an unpopular view, because it entailed trouble upon a greater number of Members. He believed, however, that the complaints of Members being overworked were somewhat exaggerated. He himself had been exempt from serving on Committees for a considerable period, and he knew other Members who were never put on Private Bill Committees at all. If the work were more evenly distributed there was no reason why the House should not revert to the old number of five. The new plan of appointing Referees would materially diminish the labours of Committees, and, therefore, the main reason for diminishing the number of Members was very nearly cut away. He could not support the number three except on the ground that it was not quite so bad as four, but he strongly recommended the House to go back to the old number five.

trusted hon. Members would not decide the question solely on the ground of personal inconvenience. But he hoped that, whether the number consisted of three or five, the vote of one Member would be considered equal to the vote of another. He believed that it would take away all energy and responsibility from the Member of a Committee if he found that his opinion was only worth one-half that of the Member sitting next to him. The result would be that he would leave all to the Chairman. He did not care much whether a Committee consisted of three or five, but let each Member feel that his opinion was worth as much as that of the Member sitting near him.

said, that the question was not the convenience or inconvenience of hon. Members, but what tribunal would give the greatest satisfaction to the parties who came before it. He believed that the feeling among those who usually went before Parliamentary Committees was universal that three was a better number than five. He agreed that four was a number adopted by mistake. It was indeed the most absurd number of any that could be suggested. One strong reason in favour of three was, that it would enable the Committee of Selection to appoint a greater number of Committees at the same time, so that the Private Bill legislation of the House would be got through with less delay, and at an earlier period of the Session. It might be worthy of the consideration of the Committee of Selection whether they ought not to depart from the rule of excluding from Railway Committees all Members connected with railway interests, because the rule of the House excluding those Members who were connected with the district was quite sufficient. The rule prevented many most competent persons from discharging important public duties. He believed that the knowledge of the subject possessed by Members who were now excluded would very much improve the composition of Committees.

said, that the proposal now before the House was that which was recommended in the Committee by the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley). But there were two others, which the noble Lord coupled with it—the one that the Committees should sit at an earlier hour, and the other that the number of days should be limited on which Members should serve. As himself connected with the railway interest he was at a loss to understand the ground upon which all who were so situated were invariably excluded from serving upon Railway Committees. He believed they would act as impartially as other men.

said, he proposed last year that the number of Members serving on Private Bill Committees should be reduced to three. The House had consented to a reduction of the number, but had fixed it at four. Now, he agreed with the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Charles Forster) that three were preferable to four, and for the reason, among others, that it would be a saving of 25 per cent on the labour of the House; and seeing that the number of Railway Bills was greater now than for many years past, that was a consideration which the House could hardly afford to overlook. It was also to be remembered that the more they limited the number of Members, the more they fixed and concentrated the responsibility of each. They ought not to limit the decision to one man, because every man was liable to crotchets and fancies, which could only be removed by discussion. Short, however, of leaving the decision to one man, he believed that the smaller the number the better. If, for example, they had twelve or fifteen instead of five, they would have infinitely more careless decisions than at present. Lastly, there was the reason to which hon. Members had already adverted—namely, that by adopting the number of four they were giving to the Chairman in all cases of doubt a double vote. Now, generally speaking, in these Private Bill Committees the Chairman had the largest experience in that class of subjects, and his opinion necessarily carried with it considerable weight. He did not think it desirable to add to that natural advantage which the Chairman already possessed by giving him a double vote. He would admit the difficulty which was liable to arise in the event of illness; but the House must remember that if they diminished the number of Members from five to three they diminished by nearly one-half the amount of labour imposed; the work would be more distributed over the House, and there would be no occasion for calling upon Members to serve for so great a length of time as at present. He did not hesitate to say that the present term of service upon Private Bill Committees was a great deal too long, that the time and energies of hon. Members had often been unduly taxed. He had proposed in Committee that, except for the purpose of finishing the hearing of a case already begun, a Member should not be called upon to serve more than ten days. Under these arrangements, the probability of a Member being called away by illness or inevitable business was so small that it might be put out of the calculation. In such cases he would allow parties who objected to going on with two Members to stop the hearing, and call for a new Committee; but he believed that in nine cases out of ten they would rather go on with the Chairman and one Member than go over the same ground a second time. In that case no one could complain, because volenti non fit injuria.

said, he could not enter upon the subject before the House without referring to a remark which had been imported into the discussion by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Smollett), as to the manner in which the members of the Private Committees were chosen. As Chairman of the Committee of Selection, it was his special duty to defend that Committee, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Committee of Selection always endeavoured to act with equal fairness towards all the Members of that House. If the hon. Member would only look at the list of the last Session, he would be sensible of the difficult duty which the Committee of Selection had to discharge. Not only must certain Members of the House be altogether omitted, but towards the middle of the Session it must be remembered that many Members who would be otherwise available were engaged in Public Committees, and, therefore, the range of selection was very much narrowed. He was very much surprised to hear the hon. Baronet the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) complain of not having been put on a Private Committee, for the hon. Baronet had asked to be excused on the ground that he was serving on a Public Committee; and if the Committee of Selection had not put him on a Private Committee, it was because they believed his attention was directed to public matters. With regard to the Motion before the House, he wished to say that he was Chairman of the Select Committee which recommended that the number should be reduced from five to three. He himself submitted that proposal to the House. A division was taken upon it, and the Motion was rejected by a considerable majority. In the several alterations which he had suggested last Session, his object was mainly to save the time of hon. Members, and seeing that three was objected to, he was willing to take four, because it enabled the Committee of Selection to discharge the business with fewer Members. He did not himself see the objection to the Committee of four. The Standing Order said that the Chairman should have the casting vote; but, if that was objected to, they might adopt the practice of the Lords, where the votes were all equal, and if there was an even division, the question was decided in the negative. The great objection which he saw to a Committee of three was, that either the whole three must be present every moment that the Committee sat, which would be found much more laborious to Members of that House than the present system; or they must make two a quorum, and, notwithstanding the opinion of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), he very much doubted whether the great railway companies and others who might have important interests at stake would have confidence in a Committee of two. The noble Lord thought they would generally agree to leave their interests to the decision of two. But his experience led him to a very different conclusion. An able counsel, before he was two days before a Committee, would have pretty well ascertained the inclinations of the Members as to the leading points in dispute; and he very much doubted, therefore, whether there would be that general disposition which the noble Lord imagined to leave the matter in controversy to the decision of two. And what, then, would follow? Why, that the meetings of the Committee must be adjourned, and the enormous expense would be doubled in consequence of the delay. He was in favour of three if the thing could be done with justice to all; but having considered the subject since last Session, and having consulted men of experience upon it, he had come to the conclusion that a Committee of three would not answer. He could not quit the subject without expressing to the House the anxiety which he felt at the present moment in consequence of the enormous amount of private business before it. There were no less than 595 Private Bills to be disposed of. It took an hour and twenty minutes to go through the Bills that were presented for reading a first time. That fact inclined him to look with trembling to the difficulties that must be encountered during the present Session. Those difficulties were enormously increased by the absence of one Member upon whom he (Colonel Wilson Patten) was accustomed to depend for assistance, and whose loss would be greatly felt; he alluded to the late Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Massey, who had been appointed to an important office in India. He congratulated him upon that appointment, but certainly the difficulties in the way of the transaction of business in that House were enormously increased by his absence. The Gentleman, whoever he might be, who should succeed Mr. Massey, would have a task to perform of which men unaccustomed to it had but little idea. But Mr. Massey was so thoroughly acquainted with it that he was a host in himself. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would favour the House with his opinion on the subject before it.

said, the proposal to change the number composing their Committees on Private Bills arose entirely, he believed, from the difficulty which the hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson Patten) found in getting a sufficient number of Members to compose the numerous Committees that were required to be formed. He thought the feeling of the House on the former occasion was that a Committee of five was in itself a good Committee. He (Mr. Milner Gibson) was certainly in favour of adhering to the Committee of five. It was not so numerous as to lessen the sense of responsibility in the individual Members, and at the same time the absence of one or two Members from unavoidable causes did not reduce it below a fair quorum. He was therefore in favour of adhering to the Committee of five as the best. If, however, the hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire stated positively that he could not get the Members insufficient numbers to make up Committees to consist of five Members, that was a practical difficulty which required to be met. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was of course the best authority on the subject, and when he said that he could not get five it seemed to him (Mr. Milner Gibson) to be not an unreasonable proposal that they should try four—that was to say, four with a casting vote to the Chairman. The hon. and gallant Member said four without a casting vote. He (Mr. Milner Gibson) believed that was the practice in the other House of Parliament, and when the Committee was equally divided, for instance, on the question whether the preamble was proved, that it was to be taken as not proved. A Committee of four had this great advantage over a Committee of three, that if one Member was absent from illness, or any other unavoidable cause, the Committee would not be reduced below its quorum of three, and parties could have the investigation still carried on. That was so far in favour of a Committee of four. He must say that he thought the public would view it as a serious arrangement for their interests if they were to have a Committee of three only at the commencement, with the chance that through the absence of one person, which might well happen not only from illness but from various other causes, an enormous expenditure should go for nothing, and that the investigation should close owing to a circumstance for which the parties were not at all responsible. He did not himself agree that there ought to be a quorum of two with a Committee of three. He thought it very undesirable that they should ever have a Committee of two. However, he was prepared to take the chance of three. It was a question altogether for the House to determine. If the House said three, he would submit to take three with all its chances. He thought the hon. Member for North Lancashire ought to be taken as the principal authority in this matter, and if that gallant Gentleman was prepared to agree to four, then he should support him, and if the hon. Gentleman said that three was sufficient, in that case he should vote for three.

said, he agreed that the House and the country owed a deep debt of gratitude to the hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson Patten) and the Committee of Selection for the admirable way in which they discharged the arduous and difficult duties devolving upon them. But as far as the question now before them was concerned, the House had but very little choice in the matter. From what he had heard from the hon. Member who brought forward this Motion, it appeared that the number of Members was insufficient for the work they had to do; and, as the number of Bills was on the increase, while the number of available Members in the House remained the same, he agreed with the hon. Member for Walsall that some change must be made, or the whole thing must of necessity soon come to a dead lock. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Smollett) had passed a censure upon the Committee of Selection with which he could not agree; but he did concur most cordially in his censures upon the mode in which much of this Private Bill legislation originated. And there was, besides, a practice now common which led to a great amount of inconvenience and injustice. He would not say a word in disparagement of the ability and attention of the Committees and their Chairmen; no doubt they performed the work intrusted to them with great ability and attention. But different Committees naturally held different views, and the consequence was there were no regular precedents, and decisions were sometimes given reversing the decisions of previous Committees. Acting upon this fact, Bills were brought in year after year, although rejected probably from the just opposition of parties interested in the project; and yet, to the great inconvenience of the House, brought in again upon the chance of getting a favourable Committee, or of wearing out the opposition by the enormous expense it often involved. That practice ought to be put a stop to; and he trusted that whatever arrangement was now come to it would be understood to be of a temporary character, and that the House would take into its early consideration the question whether some more systematic course of action could not be devised, whereby the public would be protected from the encroachments of railway and other companies.

was in favour of three Members to serve on Committees, because by adopting that number you would lessen the labours of the House, insure greater attention and responsibility from each Committee, avoid the objection as to the Chairman's casting vote, and at the same time give satisfaction to the parties. It very rarely happened that one Member of the Committee fell ill during the inquiry; but if any such absence occurred, a third Member might be added, he being furnished with the minutes of evidence.

said, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Milner Gibson) that. they ought very much to be guided by the hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire in this matter. What that hon. and gallant Gentleman had said gave him a very strong feeling on the subject. They had now to decide, almost upon sudden notice at the commencement of a Session, whether they should not reverse what was done at the close of the previous Session, when the number of Members to serve on Private Bill Committees was reduced to four. How stood the case? The hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire said he was in favour of three; but that reconsideration had made him doubt the soundness of that opinion, because they could not avoid the risk of the three coming down to two. If they could be sure always of three there would perhaps be no difficulty; but if the Committee were reduced to two, was it likely, where great interests were involved, that the parties would be satisfied with their decision, and not bring the matter upon the floor of the House? That was a very serious risk, and he thought it was clear the House would not be satisfied to rest on the decision of two. If his hon. and gallant Friend said three, he (Mr. Henley) would agree to try that number for the year, but he should be more contented to take four; and for this reason, that last year the House affirmed it. But he felt confident neither the House nor the parties would be satisfied with the decision of two.

said, the weight of authority was in favour of four rather than three. He could see no possibility, however, of any machinery being devised which would enable the House to deal with the enormous mass of Private Bills, most of them purely speculative, now brought in every Session. The House should not forget that an attempt was to be made to carry out a new system by the appointment of Referees, and it would be well to see how that worked; but if the House were still called upon to pass every Session the large number of Private Bills brought before them, it was not possible to devise machinery which would prevent a strain upon the time of the House. The Report of the Committee which sat last Session on this subject said the only way to meet the difficulty was to diminish the quantity of the work to be performed. Mr. Massey fully agreed with that Report, which was almost unanimously agreed to; and he believed that the House would soon be compelled in self-defence to adopt that view of the case.

collected from what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Wilson Patten) that he thought it expedient to try four Members, and in this case the only question would be whether the Chairman should have a casting vote. If you could always insure that three Members would be present, three would form a very competent Committee; but the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) had said that very great difficulty might arise if the Committee were reduced to two, and he proposed to get over that difficulty by providing that the inquiry should proceed with two Members, by consent of both parties. But, in practice, that consent would hardly ever be given. When a Bill was opposed late in the Session, the opposing party would of course refuse their consent, and would throw upon the promoters the necessity of beginning de novo; so that the Bill would be defeated by mere lapse of time. He thought it better, on the whole, to adhere to the decision arrived at by the House last Session, which would of itself afford considerable relief to hon. Members.

said, he had a strong feeling against the proposal to give a casting vote to the Chairman. He wished to ask the hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire whether, in the event of four being agreed to, he would be prepared to carry out the suggestion to abolish the casting vote of the Chairman?

said, his intention undoubtedly was that they should try four for the Session. If that proposal were agreed to, he would undertake to give notice of a Motion to abolish the casting vote of the Chairman.

said, that towards the end of last Session he brought forward a Motion similar to the one he now intended to propose, and the late Chairman of Committees then stated as an objection to it the increased expenditure it might cast on persons appearing before Private Bill Committees, but promised that, during the recess, he would consult with parties interested in such Bills on the subject, holding out an expectation that he would this Session agree to some such proposition. The late Chairman of Committees had now left that House, and he had not had the opportunity of seeing that hon. Gentleman since last Session. He would not now have ventured to propose this Motion had not many experienced Members of the House, well versed in the practice of Private Bill Committees, fully concurred in the advisability of the Resolution being brought forward. Under the present system, the Members of a Private Bill Committee had no opportunity of seeing the petitions of parties until they assembled in the Committee-room; then, on applying to the clerk, he could have it handed over to him engrossed in a cumbrous form on a parchment almost as large as the table before which he sat. If he perused it he must do so at a time when perhaps counsel was speaking, or some witness giving important evidence. To obviate this inconvenience, he would propose that the petitions connected with Private Bills should be sent to the Members of Private Bill Committees two days before the assembling of each Committee; and he would also propose that the Private Bills themselves should be forwarded to the Members of the Committee two days previous to the assembling of each Committee. He thought it would be an improvement if a copy of each petition were delivered along with the Bill in the manner he proposed. Members of Committees might thereby have an opportunity of considering what they were to adjudicate on, and of comparing the statements in the petition with the promoters' Bill. The Chairman of Committees objected last Session to this on the ground of the increased expense it would occasion; but he had since ascertained by inquiries that fifty copies of a petition taking up four pages could be printed in the type used for printing the Votes and Proceedings of the House at a cost of less than 28s., and that 250 copies would cost considerably under £2 10s. The despatch of business before Private Bill Committees would obviously be facilitated by the adoption of his suggestion; and he begged, therefore, to move a new Standing Order to the effect—

"That on every Private Bill, to be considered by a Committee of this House, all Petitions presented against such Bills be printed at the expense of the Petitioners, and Copies of those Petitions, as well as a Copy of the Bill to be considered, be delivered to each Member of the Committee not less than two days previous to its assembling."—(Mr. Torrens.)

said, he believed this proposition was a very reasonable one, but at the same time thought it must involve a considerable increase of expense to the parties appearing before these Committees. He had seen the Motion on the paper only within the last few hours, and had not had an opportunity of taking the opinion of persons interested on that point. Perhaps, therefore, the hon. Member would be kind enough to postpone the Motion for a day or two.

said, he should be happy to act upon the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Lancashire; but, having already ascertained that the expense that would result from the adoption of his proposal would be so very trifling, he thought the House would gain nothing by further inquiry.

said, that taking the hon. Member's word on that point, he would acquiesce in his Motion.

thought it desirable that the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Lancashire should be acted upon by the proposer of the present Motion. He (Mr. Milner Gibson) had a strong impression that Mr. Massey, the late Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, had some objection to the alteration now proposed, but he could not positively say. He, however, hoped the hon. Member would postpone his Motion.

said, he agreed to it, but did so very unwillingly.

moved—

"That a Message be sent to the Lords requesting their Lordships to communicate to this House the Minutes of Evidence which may be taken before every Committee on a Private Bill originating in the present Session with their Lordships, and sent down to this House."