upon them, they have been declared to be void.

Some of the charters, however, do recognise the right of the Universities to suspend and deprive graduates.2

و

If analogy is to be resorted to, all the cases at all similar will be found in favour of the power to deprive of a degree. A clergyman may be degraded, a barrister may be disbarred 1, a member of the House of Commons may be expelled 3, a knight may be degraded, and instances are to be found of the degradation of a peer. In all these instances the punishment is not inflicted by the ordinary courts, and the party sentenced is deprived of a possession in the nature of a freehold.

In this slight sketch, which does not attempt to exhaust the subject, all direct controversy with the opinions already published has been studiously avoided; still less has it been attempted to go into the merits of the case now before the public. However unquestionable the jurisdiction, it should be sparingly and temperately exercised: large bodies of men, however educated, are apt to decide such questions with the spirit of partisans rather than in the temper, and with the sense of responsibility, befitting a judge.

13 Burr. 1656, 1657.

3 Gibs. Cod. 1066.

5 Wilkes' case, 1 Bl. Comm. 163.

2 Dyer's Privileges, i. 316, 817. 363.

4 Bousfield's case, 1839.

6 Spelman's Works, vol. ii. 184.

Nevill's case, 6 Rot. Parl. 173., Cru. Dign. 178.; Shrewsbury, earl, case

of, 12 Co. 107., 2 State Trials, 741.

ART. IV.— PRIVATE BILLS IN PARLIAMENT.

1. Report from the Select Committee on Private Business; with the Minutes of Evidence, and Appendix. 1838.

2. Resolutions on Railway Bills.

Ordered by the House of

Commons to be printed, 4th March, 1845.

SOME alterations in that branch of parliamentary jurisdiction which relates to Private Bills have been made within the last few years in both Houses of Parliament, alterations, in fact, so important as to give this jurisdiction a new character, if not to work in it an entire change. We have already noticed in the present Number the great extent and vast importance of the private business transacted by Parliament, and it is of the utmost consequence to watch the changes which are made in conducting it. They come to some extent suddenly; the hands that work them are unseen, and yet are clothed with absolute power; the tribunal lies out of the beaten track of lawyers, is accessible to peculiar interests, is subject, in fact, to most of the vicissitudes of political life, and, at any rate so far as the House of Commons is concerned, is exposed to much of the tumult of a popular and elective body. Let us see, therefore, in greater detail (for we have already glanced at them), the steps that have been taken in this matter within the last few years, for the important years in this respect do not amount to ten. The alterations to which we wish to call attention date from the Session 1837. And first, as to the House of Lords.

The inconveniences of the system which prevailed before the 6th of July, 1837, are thus mildly stated by the Duke of Richmond, in his evidence before the Private Business Committee of the House of Commons of 1838:

"The inconvenience of the old system was, that not only there were not the same peers listening to the whole of the evidence

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 Legisla ture, 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 think that the five members of the Select Committee thus named 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.

"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