The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-19 00:00:00

CFIEgVER AND HOLYHEAD RAILWAY EX-
TENSION. _ _

Mr. WARD moved tlrat the evidence taken before the
Committee be printed before the Bill was further pro-
ceeded with.—Agreed to.
REGULATION OF PRIVATE BILLS.

Mr. GREENE said, that in the absence of the Hon.
Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), he begged to move
the order of the day for the adjourned debate on the
question, that it is expedient that the constitution and
practice of all Committees on private Bills, in future
sessions of Parliament, should be assimilated as nearly as
may be to those of Committees on railway Bills; and that
it be an instruction to the Committee of Revision of Stand-
ing Orders, to make provision accordingly. In doing this
he could not but regret that the duty had not fallen into
more able hands. But as he had nine years ago entered
fully into the subject, and as he had participated in the
construction of one of the first reports that had ever
been made, he was anxious to see the recommendation
which had been then thrown out. The House some time
afterwards adopted the principle of placing Members on
the Committee who had no interest in the places
to which private Bills had reference; but it
had not been commonly adopted, and it was now
necessary that some further regulations should be made.
He did not think that Hon. Members, who were locally
interested in any'Private Bills which came before them
in their Committees, should be allowed to vote upon the
decision of such Bills ; and he certainly thought that
some change was needed for in the constitution of the
Committees of the House of Commons.
Mr. BERNAL thought that the motion ought not to
have been brought forward in the absence of the Hon.
Member for Montrose, whose offspring this motion really
was. He was convinced from the enormous increase of
private business annually brought before the House
that a time was not far distant when the House
would completely throw overboard all the private
business, and leave the adjudication of such
subjects entirely in the hands of another tribunal. He
would oppose the motion by every possible mode the
rules of the House afforded.
Sir R. H. INGLIS thought that the principle of con-
ducting the private business ought to partake mere of
the nature, and be influenced more by the
principles, of the public business of this House.
In the management of railway Bills there was a great
error committed in placing the business which affected
a local district before a Committee of that House, the
Members of which were completely ignorant of the local
wants of that district. Why, in such a case the decision
depended not so much on the merits of a case as on the
abilities of the counsel. He thought that no reason had
been assigned for reversing the decision which the House
bad come to on the 20th of January, and he should,
therefore, give his opposition to the motion.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE supported the motion, and
considered that the Hon. Gentlemen who opposed it had
not stated sufficient grounds for its • rejection. They
had stated in opposition to it that Members would
be burdened with more work than at present;
but the very contrary would be the case, be-
cause, under the new system, five would often
be enabled to perform the task now assigned to fifteen.
The present system was bad, because it overworked
Members—(Hear, hear)—but the plan proposed would
make that labour less. As Chairman of the Committee
of Selection, he had found great difficulty in the
I selection of Members, but he apprehended that
ithe plan of his Honourable Friend would remove it.
He considered that it was greatly necessary to alter
some part of the present system, and he believed that if
they adopted the plan propOsed by the Hon. Member
they would effect a great public benefit. They would
advance the dispatch of business, and he was quite sure,
at all events, they would consult the convenience of the
Members of the House. (The Hon. Member, owing to
the noise in the House, was but indistinctly heard.)
'Mr. BROTHERTON hoped that the House would
risme before it attempted to carry out this resolution.
With regard to the constitution of Committees on former
occasions, he remembered when 60 or 70 Members were
entitled to sit upon the Committee, and were, without
being interested in the question, induced to come and
give their votes. He thought that in those Com-
mittees which sat to decide upon subjects of a
1, cal nature, that local Members ought to be
allowed to sit upon them. He conceived that such a plan
would be much better than the present one, by which
two or three Members were put upon a railway Com-
mittee when they were actually interested in the passing
of the Bill before them. If they could not use direct
influence, still they would have weight enough with the
chairman to affect the Bill in its clauses. If the pro-

position was open to modification, he should give his
support to it.
Mr. BANKES said he was quite ready to view this
question in respect to the parties more immediately con-
cerned. In that view he was obliged to support the
Hon. Member for Salford. His experience lately on a
Railway Committee, where the want of local information
was severely felt, strengthened his conviction. He be-
lieved the system pursued, in respect to the rail-
ways was, perhaps the best that could be adopted
with regard to them ; but only in regard to them for
the qualification for this tribunal was ignorance.
Mr. STRUTT begged to remind the House that they
had already expressed an opinion on the very subject
which was now under consideration. A motion on it
was made by the Hon. Member for Dumfries, which,
because it was somewhat prematurely brought on, was
negatived by many in the House. No final decision, there-
fore, was given. In reference to what had fallen from the
Member about ignorance as a qualification, it
was enought for him to say that, not ignorance, but im-
pavtiality, was the qualification which was looked for in
a Committee, as in a jury and he thought that was the
more satisfactory principle on which to constitute a
tribunal.
Lord SANDON said he should like that the members

of the Standing Orders Committee should come before
the House instead of being contented with general in•
structions. All questions that were brought before the
Committees were in some degree local ones, and when
the House ordered no local representative should sit upon
that Committee, it practically denied the district to be
affected by the Bill the means of making its opinions
known to Parliament. He hoped the House would pause
before they came to any decision upon the subject. He
was of opinion that local Members should be placed on
these Committees. The rule might have been quite
right to exclude them on railway Bills, but it
did not follow that they should be excluded
from Committees on Bills, which were merely local in
their nature ; in fact, he was of opinion that none but
local Meniliers awnTdbe placed there, and he was per:
ft ctly convinced that strict justice had ever been done.
—(Laughter.) At all events, place them on the Com-
mittee, do not give a vote if they felt so disposed,
but at least allow them to be present and to be heard.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that he disclaimed altogether
the propriety of considering what might be the conveni-
ence of Members of that House with regard to sitting
upon these Committees. He thought that when
a Member undertook the representation of any place,
he undertook it under the implied, if not the expressed
condition, that his convenience was to be sacrificed, and
his time devoted to the public service. He could not say
that it was for the public good, with reference to what
they were then discussing, that local Members
should be excluded. He must say that he could
not conceal his opinion that it was due to the
interest of the people that, in the discussion of private
business in that House. and which might in different
localities affect interests of vast 'importance, the
representatives of those localities should not be alto-
gether excluded. He thought that what his Noble
Friend said was
.most true with regard to the case of the
Liverpool docks' That was from the Corporation
of Liverpool, and from the Dock Company or Liver-
pool. The rival contending parties alone paid the wit-
nesses and incurred the expenses of fighting a Bill in
which these corporate bodies might not alone be in.
terested. The people at large might not have a pecu-
niary motive to appear by counsel, but they ought
to have some means of having an interest in it by their
Members, by whom they would be represented without
expense. He thought that the question was one which
materially affected the principle upon which the
people were represented.—(Hear, hear.) He would
hear it with very much regret that the House
should have surrendered at any time any of these im-
portant functions, the discharge of which is the object of
its existence. At the same time they ought to be pre-
pared to enter upon the consideration of the subject. In
the Committee to which he had alluded the
question was mooted and sustained even by an
authority such as the Hon. Chairman of Committees,
that the local interests should be carefully excluded.
It was considered by the Committee, and they decided
that the local interests should be represented, and that
private Members should be added. He (Sir James
Graham) supported that decision. He thought their
attendance was most important; it might be a question
in considering this subject whether their attendance
which at present was voluntary, ought not
to be made' compulsory, and a large proportion
of private Members added. The subject, however,
deserved ,consideration, and the resolution especiallly
which had been brought before the House, containing
some words of a questionable and almost neutralising
effect. The subject deserved the consideration
of the Government and of the new Parliament,
when they should come to deal with the standing orders
in detail. But he was surprised that this resolution
should have been brought forward now, at the last hours
of an expiring Parliament. If it went to a vote, he must
divide against it.
Sir G. GREY said that when the motion was brought
forward in the earlier part of the session, he objected to
the alteration so recently made in the matter of railway
business being again so soon changed, but since
that period a Committee had reported upon the subject,
and they almost unanimously supported the resolution
proposed by the Hon. Member for Montrose. They
did not mention any system to be proposed in its
stead, but they proposed to leave to the Committee
of Standing Orders the details of the question.
To this suggestion he would offer no objection.
Mr. ESTCOURT said that there was no dis-
inclination
to
arl
reluctance,l s elrl eve should
would
the
t be
not,ee l
pert
r o tnir
kmoefidtttherefore,euaedis
d
tions. The plan htui exhibited
and he was surd thatwo
not disappoint the
This was the la,t time, probably,
of
the honour to address them beforeay)
life ; he saw the utmost necessit
resolution, which woull not onf admirably
Members
;.eroaxftbphl
eyeo ttshst
teen.wtchea
rHt 0
104
80au3iniey.:,
expectationsthe extension of it would
the House.
fi thatlSavo
their
the
retired
ari woulddiunobtpol
adopting
cipnrgtihivmatahvteeee,
but also the convenience of the Members,
After a few words from Mr. ESTCOLTRT, which did
not reach the gallery,
Mr. LABOUCHERE said he must say that he could
not agree with the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member
for Dorchester, in conceiving that any great constitu-
tional principle was involved in the question brought
before the House. The only question for the llFlnse. to
consider was what was the best way of i3nstitiiting im-
partial tribunals for the trial of these private Bills. Ho

E S

L 0
found that under the present system the House endea-
voured entirely to separate from the consideration of
these railway Bills any local interest, and he did not
see why they should not pursue the same course
with regard to other Bills that they pursued with re-
spect to railway Bills. He could only say that Ms
opinion had become more and more strong in favour of
having a similarity between the Committee on Railway
and other Bills, as the public were much satisfied wlth
the way in which these Railway Committees had dis-
charged their delicate functions. He did not think that
Members representing a local interest should be excluded
from the proceedings in the Committee, but he thought
that they should not vote upon the question.—(Hear,
hear.) He said he would give it his consideration, in
order to the system being improved at a future time.
Mr. SHAW said, from his experience, although there
might be difficulties, the preponderance was certainly in
favour of assimilating. He should, therefore, support
the motion.
Mr. EWART said that it was objected to the present
system of conducting railway business, that the repre-
sentative of a local interest could not attend the Com-
mittee which had that interest under consideration, in
the character of a judge, but he might certainly appear
as a witness, and in that way attend to his duties, and
to his clients, in an equal degree.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the resolution
Against it
Majority _ — 28

Lord H. VANE moved " That the Wear Valley,
Bishop Auckland and Weardale, Weardale Extension,
and Wear and Derwent Railways, and Shildon Tunnel
Amalgamation Bill, be read the third time this day."
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
CLARENCE RAILWAY AND LEEDS AND
THIRSK AMALGAMATION.
Lord H. VANE moved the further consideration of
the report on this Bill.
Mr. HUDSON resisted the motion, on the ground
that the Bill contained a clause empowering the amal-
gamated company to raise money upon bonds and gua-
rantees before the shares were fully paid up.
The galleries were then cleared for a division but
none took place, and the report was agreed to, and
ordered to be engrossed.
HUDDERSFIELD AND MANCHESTER RAIL-
WAY (DEVIATIONS AND ALTERATIONS.)
This Bill was read a third time and passed. -
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Messengers from the Lords brought up several Bills
which were read a first time.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said it was not his intention
to move the adjournment of the House over to-morrow,
in order that the House might meet to-morrow to have
several Bills sent up to the Lords. He had now to
move the order of the day for going into Committee on
the Health of Towns' Bill. He perceived that his Noble
Friend, the Member for Bath, had given notice of an
amendment, but he trusted that his Noble Friend, for
the sake of facilitating the business of the House, would
not persevere in it.
Lord DUNCAN said no one was more anxious to
promote sanatory measures than himself. He had given
notice of his amendment, because the Health of Towns'
Bill did not embrace the window tax. He had, how-
ever, no intention to go fully into that subject, but
he had given notice of his-amendment, merely for the
sake of having an opportunity to mention the remark-
able fact, that within the last three or four years the
lower class of assessed houses were getting fewer and
fewer. No less than 7,000 of them had fallen off since
the tax was increased by Mr. Baring's Act. He had no
desire to impede the Noble Lord, nor had he any wish,
unnecessarily, to take up the time of the House, and he
would therefore withdraw his motion.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord G. BENTINCK said, going on with the business
to-morrow would be a great inconvenience to many
Hon. Gentlemen. Saturday had always been a holiday,
and as no notice had been given that the House would
meet to-morrow, no doubt many of them had made en-
gagements for to-morrow.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he did not propose to
proceed to-morrow with any Bill that was likely to give
rise to discussion. He simply proposed that the House
should sit to enable certain Bills to be advanced that had
come down from the Lords.
Mr. ROEBUCK suggested that the Noble Lord
might facilitate the advancement of public business by
refraining from wasting time upon Bills that were not
likely to pass this session.—(Hear, hear.) The Rail-
way Bill, also, was another Bill which he thought there
was no chance of passing this session, and at this period
neither of them should have been brought forward to oc-
cupy the attention of Parliament. The Poor-laws
Amendment Bill, however, must be carried, and he was
of opinion that the Noble Lord should consider the time
of the House, and only deal with those measures which
he intended should be passed, and not take up their
time unnecessarily.
LUNATIC ASYLUM (No. 2) BILL.

On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, this Bill was
read a third time and passed.
HEALTH OF TOWNS' BILL.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in moving thnorder of the
day for going into Committee on this Bill, said that he
could not coincide in the observations which had been
; ust made by the Hon. and! Learned Member for Bath.
He was of opinion that it would not be acting fairly,
either to the Government or to the House, to presume
that there was a host of objections to this Bill,
when no notice whatever had been given of them,
and to forthwith proceed on that presumption in
the manner he suggested. The Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman also said that the Poor-law Amendment Bill
must be passed. There had been a great many objec-
tions to this Bill, but this ought not to deter them from
proceeding with the measure, and endeavouring to pass
it into a law. He should now, therefore, move that the
House do go into Committee on the Health of Towns
Bill, that he might have an opportunity of hearing what
those formidable objections were which lion. Members
had to propose against it.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that the Noble Lord had
misunderstood him. He did not want the Noble
Lord to withdraw this or any other Bill,
but only not to occupy their time unnecessarily.
or bring under their consideration Bills which he had no
intention of passing into a law this session. The very
circumstance of the Noble Lord saying that he wished
to hear what formidable objections there were to the
measure, showed that he had no intention of carrying
it into a law this session.
Mr. MACKINNON thought the Hon. and Learned
Member for Bath was rather severe upon the Noble
Lord, and that with regard to the Bill before
the House, an ample opportunity should be given for
discussing its merits.
Mr. WAKLEY wished to know whether the House
was to sit to-morrow to proceed with unopposed Bills ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—BiIIs in their unopposed
stages.
Mr. WAKLEY said that he was unable to distin-
guish between those Bills which were opposed, and
those which were unopposed. With regard to one Bill
—the House of Commons Cost Taxation Bill—the re-
port on which stood for further consideration, it had
not, as far as he understood, been opposed in any
shape it had yet gone through, but neither the Govern-
ment nor the House were aware whether that would be
an unopposed Bill or not. He thought if the Govern-
ment would take a review of the various Bills before
the House, and tell them on Monday what those were
tthe t o
Hpouroseerainwdit ofh
which they were- going to abandon, and what they in-
tended ig
great"
et
would
advantagebea greatth convenience
the
public.o
They would then see what business they had before
for
Lancashireto th eßill s.
what
them, and-what the intentions of. the Government were
with
hisw ishiendtentotioasna were
k the
wtHon.th
Member respect
regard to the measure to which he had • referred,
as a great number of solicitors were anxious to know
whether it was to be proceeded with this session. He
would be glad to know, therefore, whether it was in-
tended to the proceeded with before the evidence on which
it professed to be founded was laid before the House,
With regard to the Health of Towns' Bill, he felt in.
debted to the Government for bringing on the measure,
as it was of great public importance, and he hoped no-
thing would induce them to abandon it.
Mr. GitEENE said that, with regard to the question
put to him by the Hon. Member for Finsbury, he did
not wish to give an answer in the absence of the Hon.
Member for Montrose, as it emanated from a Committee
of which he was the chairman. On Thursday next,
however, he would acquaint the Hon. Gentleman whe-
ther it should be proceeded with or not.
After a few words from Mr. G. PALMER,
Mr. HUDSON said that it was unfair to ask the
House to sit to-morrow, as no notice had been given of
that intention, and many Hon. Gentlemen had made en-
gagements which would necessarily prevent them- from
attending.
Mr. DIVETT said that he considered that the pre-
sent was a most ill considered Bill, and he was of opi-
nion that it should be withdrawn from the Rouse.
Mr. PROTHEROE said that he would consider it his
duty to give it his most strenuous support through all its
stages. His only complaint against the Noble Lord was
that he did not include the _city of Westminster in its
provisions, for it wanted it as sadly as any other.
Mr. BURKE was opposed to the Bill, and he called
upon the landed interest to oppose it in every possible
manner. They should do so on one principle, as the
lists would subject the rural districts to the town corpo•
rations. It was a notorious fact that the poOt were now
subsisting on either a voluntary rate or the benevolence
of individual charity, and he would ask the Noble Lord
was this a time when a new liability should be placed
upon the landed proprietary ? _
Lord MORPETH—I do not rise to stop the discus-
sion on this question, but merely to state that it is by no
means intended to include the rural districts within the
jurisdiction of the corporations; it is true that there are
provisions for widening the boundaries of towns, but
there are none which would operate in the manner de-
scribed by the Hon. Gentleman.

Mr. BitOTHERTON said that he would support the
Bill which was most beneficial, and he did trust that the
Government would persevere with it against every op-
position.
Mr. BORTH WICK supported the Bill, and took oc-
casion to defend himself from certain expressions of Mr.
Macaulay on the debate with reference to Portugal.
That Honourable Member said that his (Mr.
Borthwick'e) statements could never have been
made by a person who was acquainted with the
state of facts, or made conscientiously. The Hun.
Member then read a letter from the brother of General
Sa La Dandiera, which bore out the statement made to
the House by him on that occasion. He therefore would
repeat every: thing which he had then stated inj the
fullest and most peremptory manner. It had been said
that a friendly assurance had been given to the fleet that
they were not to leave the Douro. Was that a friendly
assurance?—was it a friendly assurance to tell a man that
leadinghe
would
menn He
- o ete
would be shot If he attempted to leave his house?
e
anyp
ofsui
tritohne rwuhpoo no
ought
tt
topa rbtoorcif the
t
question. e was, toweyer, sorry to see that all the
the op