The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-20 00:00:00

NEW POOR-LAW.

Mr. FERRANI) gave notice that on an early day after
Easer he would bring the new poor•law under the con-
sideration of the House.
POOR REMOVAL ACT.

Mr. C. BULLER pre:.sented a petition from Liskeard,
against the Poor Removal Act passed last session.
GOVERNMENT MEASURES.

Mr. DILLON BROWNE wished to a,lc the Noble
Lord when i; was his intention to proceed with the
Waste Lands Bill?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he intended proceeding
with it on Monday next.
Mr. SHAW wished to ask the Noble Lord whether
he would proceed with Irish business on Government
nights, and when he intended taking the poor-law for
Ireland into consideration?
Lard JOHN RUSSELL said it was his intention
to proceed with the poor-law on Monday
next, and he believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had consented to proceed with the consideration of the
Customs duties on Friday instead of on Monday, accord-
ing to the notice which had been given ; and he might
at the same time state that before going into Com-
mittee the Secretary-at-War would take some of the
estimates for the army which were necessary for the
public service.
ACCOMMODATION OF MEMBERS OF THE
HOUSE OF COMMONS IN THE NEW HOUSE
OF LORDS.
Mr. HUME begged now to ask the question of which.
he had given notice the other evening, namely, whe-
ther any provision had been made in the new House of
Lords for the accommodation of Members of the House
of Commons? It appeared to him that there was no
room for Members of that House, while in attendance
there, unless they consented to be pressed and packed
together in a way which was not creditable. He begged
to know, therefore, whether there was any arrange-
ment for that accommodation which the Commons
were entitled to have; and, before he resumed his seat,
he begged to state that he objected to standing in the
House of Lords so long as they gave a Peer the privi-
lege of sitting when he attended in the House of Com-
mons.--(Cheers from both sides of the House.) He
submitted this to the attention of her Majesty's Govern-
ment, as worthy of their consideration.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he was not aware the
Hon. Gentleman had given notice of these questions,
and he was, therefore, not prepared to answer them.
Mr. HUME (interposing)—Well, next week, Monday
night.—(Laughter.)
GREAT WESTERN AND SOUTH-WESTERN
RAILWAYS.

Mr. BOUVERIE begged to ask whether the Great
Western Railway Company, or its agents, or the South-
Western Railway Company, or its agents, had been asked
by the Committee of Selection, to state to what Members
of the whole House they objected as members of the
Committees to be appointed for Groups 5 and 6? Whether
the Great Western Railway Company, or its agents, had
objected accordingly, to upwards of 300 Members of the
House? And whether it is the practice of the Conimit-
tteg of Selection to communicate, to opposing parties
in any railway group, the names of the chairman and
members proposed to be appointed for the Committee
on that group. He said the facts of the case
werethese. The Committee of Selection on Railway Bills
reported on the 11th February, that they had grouped
certain Bills into two sets, Groups 5 and G. Group 5
contained seven Bills affecting railways in the neigh-
bourhood of Windsor and Staines, and Group 6, thirteen
Bills specially re:ating to the west of England ; and in
each of these groups was a Bill belonging to the South-
Western and the Great Western Railways respec-
ti%,ely ; in other words, the broad and narrow gauges.
On the 15th of February, the Committee of Selection
gave notice that they had appointed a Select Committee
to try the merits of this question, and they gave a list of

the lifernbers whom the; had appointed] for the Select
Committee. That list was submitted to the Parlia-
miagy agents on both sides, that is, to the agents of
they at Western and of the South- Western Companies.
He had understood than this lint was objected to by the
agents of both. On the 16th of February the Committee
' of Selection gave notice that the Select Committee would
meet on the 20th of March, that is one week later than
the time previously appointed ; and with this notice
also they gave lists, as he understood, of the mem-
bers whom they had appointed to serve on the Com-
mittee, comprising, as he believed, 300 Members and
a list of the Members objected to by both sides was re-
quested, and the Committee of Selection appointed the
Monday following for the settlement of the affair. With
the notice stating the circumstance, they had given the
name of the Member who was named as chairman, as
well as those of the Members who were to act on the
Committee. He understood that these lists were again
objected to by both parties. The Hon. Member for Co-
ventry had been named as the chairman of one of these
Committees, and had complained to the House that this
objection should be permitted by the Committee of Se-
lection. The several agents of the companies, as he
understood, had then stated the names of all the mem
bers, to which they objected. The only proof of this
which he had was a letter received by Mr. Creed, the
agent of the South-Western Company, part of which he
would read. This letter was dated the 16th of March,
and it stated that the writer had communicated the
names of the Members objected to to the Committee of
Selection ; but, however desirable it might be
to shorten their labours, yet such a wholesale
objection as that stated in the communication
of the company could not possibly be allowed.
He wished to have some explanation upon the subject
from the Hon. Baronet opposite, and he should be glad
to be corrected if ho had misrepresented any part of the
matter; but if what he had stated was truth, or any-
thing like truth, he must say that the course which had
been pursued was derogatory to the House; and while
he admitted the zeal and ability with which the Hon.
Baronet performed the laborious duties imposed upon
him, he could not help thinking that he had, in this
instance, committed an error of judgment.
Sir J. Y. BULLER said he had great pleasure in an-
swering the question of the Hun. Gentleman. The ap-
plications were not made to only three companies, but
to all the principal railway companies which were likely
to have Bills before the House this ses-
sion. They were requested, for the guidance
of the Committee of Selection, to state whether
they objected to any Member sitting upon their Bills,
and if they did, their reasons fur doing so. Only two
answers, however, were received—one from the
Great Western Company, and the other
from the London and South-Western Company.
As that course was the course prescribed by law in the
case of contested elections, that the parties petitioning
were called on to state their objection, ho did not see
why that was not the proper course to be adopted in this
instance. He did not know what were the numbers to
which the railway companies did object, but be be-
lieved that the Great Western Railway did object to a
much greater extent than the opposing company.
Mr.ELLICE said it appeared to him that when Hon.
Members had been asked to serve, and had agreed, and
their narn,s were published in the papers of that
Rouse should bo entitled to protection. He had
hoped that his Honourable Friend opposite would have
come
in down and
raecd,eil!tet,eidththat the Committee were in
gavrienagsons to Ilon.esi)
oerurtorg
objections as valid, with-
had adopted. As respected himself,
ed to himraslellf;
Members for the course they
if the Committee of
wouldcause
of at once say
Selection had appli
treesteiocnortao
whether either party had any just°
lien. But when he stated that in neither of

panies had he the slightest interest, the remarks of the
Honourable Member, it would be seen, were ground-
less and false. The 11-11,e, he thought, should pro-
tect Honourable Members from such imputations
being cast upon them, as it was necessary for its cha-
racter that its proceedings should not be called in ques-
tion, unless on sufficient grounds.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN must say that he'was most
surprised at the Honourable Gentlenaan taking the
matter up so warmly. It was well known, however,
that there were many objections to Members serving on
such Committees, which did not in the least affect the
character of those who were objected to. He must
say that the situation of the Committee of Se-
lection was a most painful one, and if it was ren-
dered more so it would be impossible for it to dis-
charge its duties with efficiency.—(Hear and cheers.)
His own impression was, that the Hon. Member had
committed an error, but he did not think the course the
House had adopted would in any way lower its high
character.

Mr. ELLICE explained. He hoped he had not
expressed himself in any way to offend the
Honourable Member.—(Hear, :hear.) It was true
he had spoken warmly on the subject, bat he did so
because he believed the character of the House was in-
volved in the matter.—(Hear, hear.) He disclaimed any
intention of wishing to cast any imputation whatever
on his Honourable Friend opposite—he disclaimel it the
other night, and he did so now. He knew the
arduous duty of a member of one of the Railway Com-
mittees ; but he hoped that the practice of making
charges against a Committee behind its back would not
be repeated again.—(Hear, hear.) •
Mr. S. HERBERT considered that there was no wish
on the part of the Hon. Gentleman with whom the dis-
cussion had originated to cast any imputations' on the
Hon. Member (Mr. Ellice). A misrepresentation pre-
vailed as to the right of persons to object to Members
nominated to serve upon Committees. The:South• Wes-
tern sent a list to the Committee of Members to whom
they objected, but they refused to entertain any such
proceeding on the part of the company, and the list was
in consequence returned to them. What the Committee
asked for was a list of the Members who were disqualified
from sitting on the Committees from their connexion
with various railways. It was possible that a Com-
mittee might not know those Members who were di-
rectors of companies ; and, therefore, it was necessary
that such a list should be furnished to them whenever
they required it.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE stated that he endeavoured to
explain as well as he could that he had no intention to
impute improper conduct to the members of the Committee
behind their backs. The imputation, if it really was
an imputation, was this, that every member
of the Committee, with the exception of two,
were selected from one district of the country.
The discharge of the Committee had no reference to
private character or private connexion. Now he would
put himself upon the judgment of the House. He was
called upon by his Hon. Friend to say that what
he bad done was wrong, and that he would
not do so again, but he maintained that what
he bad done was right; and it; at any future time. from
any oversight or want of information, they should have
nominated a Committee, and afterwards it ap-
peared that there were good reasons to discharge
it, he would consider it his faithful duty to
face the obloquy which he knew attended him
at the present ►nument.—(Cries of " No, no.") At all
events, he knew that he had given some offence to his
Hon. Friend, but he would tell him that the reason why
he did not confer with him was, because there was no
question of private connexion; it was only an objection
to a line of country, and it was nothing which any
Gentlemen could answer, or required any communica-
tion with individual Members.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, be rose as a Member
of the House; although he did not often take part in
the duties to which the discussion referred, yet he
thought it necessary to do so after the statement
of the Hon. Baronet. The objection to his Right
Honourable Friend was not that he had any private
interest to disqualify him from serving on the Com-
mittee, it was only to the place which he represented,
and upon which there could be no difference of opinion
as to matter of fact. He concurred generally with the
Hon. Baronet, and he felt quite sure that the House
could not do better than leave all these matters to his
discretion, and he was certain that he would exercise a
sound discretion, and preserve the character of the
House. He considered also that the house ought to
support him in the discharge of very onerous duties.
Mr. ELLICE wished to know whether, should a Com-
mittee be appointed, after the fullest investigation and
named in the votes, it could be discharged without the
interference of the House

After a few words from Lord SANDON, which did
not reach the gallery,
Mr. AGLIONBY suggested that before the Com-
mittee nominated by the Committee of Selection was
reported to the House, or appeared on the votes, some
communication should be made to the Members :vhom the
Committee of Selection intended to put upon the list.
He thought that after such communication, any Hon.
Member might himself object; but he did not think that
the honour of the House would be advanced by striking
out the names of Hon. Members of the Committee after
they had once been placed upon it.
Mr. VILLIERS STUART thought it was scarcely
fair that this charge should be brought forward
a second time, as that had been done in the -first in-
stance, and an explanation given.
After a few words from Mr. BOUVERIE the subject
dropped.