upon the same bill, but that frequently there was one chairman one day and a different peer in the chair the next; the consequence was, that the proceedings were much longer than was necessary, and the nature of the attendance very unsatisfactory to all the parties. There was another objection: it was found that peers came who had not listened to a single syllable of the evidence, and voted upon the question whether the preamble was proved or not: that led to a great deal of dissatisfaction among the peers themselves, and I have every reason to believe out of doors also.". Minutes of Evidence, 1838, H. C., p. 46.

This dissatisfaction does not seem at all surprising; and we shall content ourselves, as to this point, with this short extract.

A series of Standing Orders, dated 6th July, 1837, however, were made, which ordered (among other things), 1. That every opposed bill, not being an Estate Bill, be referred to a Select Committee of five peers, who shall choose their own chairman; 2. That every one of such Committee do attend the proceedings of the Committee during the whole continuance thereof; 3. That no Lord who is not one of the five do take any part in the proceedings of the Committee; and, 4. That Lords be exempted from serving on the Committee on any private bill wherein they shall have an interest.

The five Lords are appointed by a Committee of Selection, who themselves take no part in private bills of this

nature.

The working of this new system has been universally admitted to be highly satisfactory, and was so stated by Sir Robert Peel, and denied by no one in the House of Commons, on the 4th of March last, on the debate that then took place on the subject, and to which we shall hereafter refer. We shall therefore pass on to the other branch of the Legislature, after one further brief extract from the evidence of the same Noble Duke:

"712. Chairman.

Under the old system, was not it notorious that there was a great deal of canvassing went on? Canvassing by every method; by letter, and by personal application. "713. Has that canvass entirely ceased, or does your Grace members of the Select Committee thus named

think that the five are exposed to it?

Certainly not; there is no canvass at all, I

believe: I do not know whether any parties speak to them about the matter, but I do not conceive either of the named peers would allow any person to speak to him upon the subject."― Minutes of Evidence, 1838, H. C., p. 51.

Next as to committees of this nature in the House of Commons, it will probably be sufficient to observe that, previous to the Session of 1839, Private Bills were referred, according to the locality to which they related, to the Members technically called "on the Speaker's list," that is to say, to all the members for the counties and boroughs near the vicinity of the place to which the bill related, and thus frequently letting in one hundred and more members, who were thus constituted members of the committee.

We have been desirous that a peer should give an account of the system which prevailed in the House of Lords before July, 1837; and we shall now let a Select Committee of the House of Commons itself describe the system which existed before any alteration had been made by that House. This is the Select Committee which, with great credit to itself and advantage to the public, has sat for many sessions "to consider whether any and what improvement can be adopted in the mode of conducting Private Business."

In their Second Report of the Session 1840 (9th July), they came, among others, to the following Resolution:

"That previous to the Session of 1839, the constitution and practice of committees on private bills were so ill calculated to procure due investigation of the subjects referred to them, or to lead to equitable decisions thereon, as to have drawn forth reiterated complaints, to the discredit of committees and the disparagement of their proceedings.

"That such evils were mainly attributable to a system of canvass, by which in opposed private bills the attendance of members was procured to vote upon questions without having heard the evidence or understood the case; and in unopposed private bills, the names of members were used as having been in attendance upon committees from which they had been altogether absent. That such practice had the effect of causing members to sanction, or to appear to sanction, proceedings of which they had no cognizance, and in unopposed private bills, of consigning to the promoters of the bill, without sufficient check, the framing of provisions by which the

rights of property of absent parties, and of the public, might, and in all probability would, be materially affected."

So far the Committee itself. Let us see further what one or two respectable and experienced parliamentary agents told this very Committee in the year 1838. A few words as to the nature of the tribunal:

"32. Chairman. Does inconvenience arise from so large a number of members being on a committee?—I think so; the very greatest, certainly, to those who are professionally engaged. It is a source of the greatest inconvenience to the solicitors in charge of the bill; they are in constant alarm, if their case is much opposed, lest they should be tripped up in any proceeding when they have not a majority of their friends in the room. The consequence is, that instead of being able to apply their whole attention to the conduct of their case, they are travelling about for members every where, and the inquiry has more the appearance of a contest which is to be decided by the number of friends on one side or the other, than one which is to be decided by the merits of the case itself.

"33. Within the last two sessions the numbers of the members voting on divisions has been taken down?—Yes, and their names have been printed in the Report in the case of Railway Bills.

"34. And also the names of all the members attending on the committee? - On railroads only; the members who have attended are only printed in the case of Railway Bills.

"35. Has that acted as a check on the members of the different committees ? If I may presume to say so, I should say not; I do not think it has altered the course of proceeding at all.

66

"36. Members have no scruple in coming down to vote without having heard a word of the evidence? Certainly not.

"37. Mr. Hume. Have you not yourself, and do you not see other agents watch the time when a division is about to take place, and then collect as many members as you can, never considering whether they have heard the evidence or not? It is the course adopted; I might perhaps be permitted to say, with regard to myself and some other agents, that we do not practise canvassing; there are persons who do it, and the solicitors generally are obliged to do it but I think some of the parliamentary agents do not canvass at all; it certainly is the custom that parties are always employed when a division is expected, in making a whip for the occasion.

"38. Sir James Graham. Though it is not done by the parlia

mentary agent, is it not the practice of the attorneys and country agents who come to London?—It cannot be done otherwise; there are generally deputations here for the express purpose.

"39. Chairman. Has that practice prevailed for a great number of years? - As long as I have known business.

"40. Mr. Aglionby. Has it not been the practice to hunt for members through the different committee-rooms to come and make a division?—No doubt of it.

"41. Viscount Ebrington. Has that practice increased or diminished of late years? — Of late years we have had more contested bills; railroads have produced a new kind of practice; there has been much more contest than there used to be, and therefore it has prevailed more of late years than it did formerly, but simply from that circumstance, that there have been more contested bills." Evidence of Mr. Burke, pp. 3, 4.

ment.

The days of these peripatetic judges are now, we trust, over for ever. The member-hunt goes on no longer; but when we read this account, and remember that it correctly describes, in the words of the Select Committee, "the constitution and practice of all committees on these bills" previous to the Session 1839, we cannot sufficiently express our amazeYet this very system had its defenders down to this very session, and they may yet exist. But could it possibly happen that such a system was not exposed to the suspicion of crimes, perhaps not greater but more odious, than gross neglect and entire want of principle? We have seen what Mr. Burke says as to the attendance and non-attendance of members. Let Mr. Hayward delicately hint, on the suggestion of three members of the House, one of them being the Chairman of the Committee, the present Speaker of the House of Commons, as to some other means which were taken to ensure the attendance of members. Let him be allowed, with evident reluctance, to give some account of a Parliamentary Crimp. Let it be remembered that we have an unwilling witness speaking of the practices of the body of judges who examine him.

"310. Mr. Aglionby. I do not ask whether the means have been successful; have you known it proposed by the solicitor or deputation to use such means as offering shares to members to induce an attendance? I have heard of such a thing, certainly.

"311. From the deputation? - I have heard that spoken of.

"312. By persons promoting the bill? I cannot recollect by whom ; I have heard that mentioned.

"313. Chairman. You do not know it of your own knowledge? - No.

"314. Mr. Hume. Have you any doubt that such means have been resorted to as offering shares to members to interest them in passing measures of that kind? - I have heard it said from quarters on which I place reliance, but I dislike believing it.

"315. Mr. Aglionby. You are not asked whether it is accepted, but whether it is considered by the promoters as one means of inducing members to attend? I believe so; I have no reason to believe it myself from any thing that has come to my personal knowledge; the people who canvass pretend to have influence with members; whether they have or not, it is not for me to say: a person introduced himself to me one day, whose name I did not know, and he held a list of members in his hand; he had crosses against the names of several whom he professed to be able to influence; he said it might be useful to me in some of the bills in which I was engaged if his services were retained.

"316. Was there any sum mentioned by him to be paid for his services? There was not; I cut the matter rather short by ringing the bell and having him shown out.

"317. Was he a professional man? No; I do not believe there is a professional man that would do such a thing." — Evidence of Mr. Hayward, p. 21.

All this is exceedingly disgusting, whether the crimp's boast were founded in truth or entirely false. Let us hope, therefore, that this system is for ever at an end, and let us pass on to that which has been introduced in its place since the Session 1839 to remedy these evils.

We should have thought that these facts would have been sufficient to induce the Committee to make an entire change: but the tide of corruption ebbed but slowly, and the Committee of 1838 (before whom this evidence was given) used the knife most delicately. Referring to the evidence they observe:

"It will there appear that the constitution of the present List Committees upon the Bill, and their mode of conducting business, is universally complained of. The same witnesses, however, are far from agreeing as to the remedy; the plan adopted this year by the House of Lords has been recommended by many of them,