The Sun.
London, England, 1824-05-28 00:00:00

this he had again and again been exposed. Members were'
deputed to do certain duties by the House, and one of these
was to hear the evidence on the subject of investigation. In
this respect they were in the character of Jurors, and ought
to be equally scrupulous. Ile had no hesitation in saying that
it was in the power of any Solicitor to a private Bill to defeat
the intentions of the house by wasting through delays the at-
tention of the Committee. The whole system of Fees, Clerks,
and Solicitors to Private Bills required reform. These abuses
were contrary to the whole spiiit of the House itself, and it was
kis opinion, that Committees deputed by the House ought to
be guided by the same rules. The Honourable Member then
quoted from various parts of Hatsell precedents in support of
his argument. On the 12th of June, 1604 the case of a mem-
ber of the name of Seymour was decided, who was party
to a Bill relative to certain estates in question between him
and the Duke of Somerset, and was required to leave the
House in order that he might not vote on the division. It was
required by the other party that the Earl of Hertford's of-
ficers should depart the House, but this was overruled, as
they were not directly interested in the decision. This plainly
sheaved that the principle of' that House was not to admit in-
terested persons to vote, and this it was that he thought ought
to be extended to private Committees The lion. Gentleman
concluded by moving, 44 that it be a Standing Order of the
House, that no 31 ember shall vote in a Committee above stairs
on any question in which his pecuniary interests are concerned;
such as Dock Committees, Canal Committees, Joint Stock
Company Committees, Roads and Inclosure Bills ; and that
the practice of the Committees above stairs be regulated in the
same manner as the decisions of this House, when individual
interest is concerned."
Mr. Secretary CANNING expressed a doubt as to the ne-
cessity of making such a standing order. He considered that
the object of the proposed ordered had been long established, if
not enjoyed in Committees above stairs, and that in every way
they were regulated by the same principles as the House itself.
He should wish, however, to hear this stated from the Chair.
The SPEAKER said; it was clear that all the rules of that
House, for the regulation of its conduct, were in full operation
in Committees up stairs. Any example relative to the course
of the House, in cases where the votes of lion. 31embers might
be influenced' by direct personal interest, were just as good for
the Committees up stairs, as for the House.—(ifear !)
Mr. Secretary CA NN iNG said, that, after this explanation
from the highest authority, there could be little doubt that the
Hon. Member's motion was superfluous. It appeared to him
impossible to frame a standing, order, so that it should meet
every case of personal interest. In contested elections, it was
the nice feelings of honour and justice that dictated the course
of proceeding. The difficulty was not in the theoretical prin-
ciple, but in the application of it. If there were any way of en-
forcing this principle the proposition might be good, but this
Resolution left it worse than it was before, because it implied
that such a principle did not pervade the conduct of private
Committees before. It did not appear to him as any help to
cure the existing evils, and, indeed, until some other system
were devised, he could not see any other way of proceeding than
challenging individual votes. The only way therefore that he
could see of disposing of this motion was by moving the pre-
, vious question, although not with any view of insinuating that
evils did not exist which required amendment.

Sir W. CRESPIGNY opposed the motion.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY opposed the motion. He '
thought with his nigh' Hon. Friend, that the House ought to
stand to the ancient principles by which it had been guided.
Be was however of opinion, that Hon. Members who attend
Committees on Private Bills were bound in honour to hear the
evidence on both sides.
Mr. P. GRENFELL advised his Hon. Friend to withdraw
his motion, and bring it forward in the shape of a Select Com-
mittee to inquire into the abuses of these Committees up stairs,
whose proceedings, in so many instances, were so disgraceful
to the character of the House. Ile had before stated and now
repeated, that by the facilities offered for delay, he would un-
dertake, if they would give hint money, to defeat any Bill
brought into the House. The utmost evils proceeded from the
long speeches of the Gentlemen of the long robe. Learned
Counsel would speak for five hours, occupying the • greater
part of two days of a Committee. The most enormous abuse
arose from this system. Members of Committees might very
fairly be called upon by their oaths or honours—they had no
personal interest in the question they were about to investi-
gate, and that they would decide upon an impartial hearing of
both sides.
Mr. ELLICE suggested that the motion should be with-
drawn, and brought forward vain early in next, Session.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY thought that the best remedy of the
evil would be to observe a more strict adherence to the orders of
• the House in all its stages connected with private Bills.
Lord STANLEY complained of the difficulty of getting
Members to attend the Committee to which they were ap-
pointed.
Mr. B. WILBRA HAM thought the matter ought not tube
postponed to next Session.
Mr. SCARLETT said, that if the rule were enforced that no
Member should vote in a Private Ommittee who had not heard
the evidence on both sides, the public _would expect the same
rule to be applied to all Public Committees.
Mr. HITME said, he was willing to withdraw his motion in
favour of a Select Committee.
Mr. Secretary CANNING said, he should oppose the
Motion proposed by the lion. Member. He hoped, however,
that this discussion would have a beneficial effect as far as this
Session was concerned, which was in fact the only mode of
dealing with the question.
Mr. HUME thought the sense of the House was in favour of
a Select Committee. They could meet, and arrange this Sem-
, sion what course they would take next. He concluded by
moving the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire if
any and what regulations were required for the better conduct
of the business of Committees on Private Bills, and report the
same to the House.
After a few words from Mr. S. Wortley, Mr. Secretary Can-
nig, Mr. Grenfell, and Sir C. Forbes,
Mr. Secretary CANNING said, that, as the Hon. Mover
and other Gentlemen seemed to be preparetrto do some good
in a Committee of this nature this Session, lie should not oppose
the motion.
The motion was then agreed to, and the Committee nomi
rutted.

CUSTOMS DUTIES' 1311,14.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the
third reading of the Customs Duties' Bill.
Mr. D. BROWN regretted that this motion was brought on
at ro late an hour of the evening, and moved that the Petition
of the County of Mayo, against the repeal of the Linen Boun-
ties be then read.

---This having been done by the Clerk,
Mr. D. BROWN resumed. He begged the particular atten-
tion of the House to the solemn protestations of the Petitioners
against the interference of Parliament in the linen trade of Ire-
land. He was next under the necessity of calling upon the
Clerk to read the two Addresses of both Houses of Parliament
to King William 111. of the 9th June, 1693, on the subject of
the Woollen Manufactures of Ireland.
The CHANCELLOR of the 7':XCIIEQUISR suggested
that as the Addresses in question were not on the table the
Might Hon. Member should proceed to observe upon those do-
cuments as though they had been read.
Mr. D. BROWN did not wonder the Bight Hon. Gentle-
man should dislike those Addresses, for they made his case so
strong as it was impossible for a just and honourable Parlia-
ment to withstand. Ile had the Addresses, and with permis-
sion of the House would read them himself.—(Cries of read.')
—The Right lion. Gentleman accordingly proceeded to read
the documents in question. 'laving concluded, he went on to
contend, that that House could not, without a flagrant breach
of faith, pass the Bill now before them, which went to abrogate
the rights preserved to the Irish by the Act of King William.
He bad pledged himself to oppose this measure in every stage,
and he did so most cordially at present.
Mr. Alderman WOOD said, he hoped the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would yet take into consideration the suggestions
he had frequently pressed upon.ltim relative to small coals.
Mr. C. H. HuTcHiNsoN caontentled that the most disas-
trous consequences would follow to the North and West of
Ireland from the withdrawal of the Linen Bounties.
Lord MILTON said it would be a consolation for the Right
Hon. Gentleman opposite to find that the effect of the with-
drawal of the Linen Bounties would be the increase of the rent
of the landowners in those quarters.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY deprecated the measure as regarded
the Coal Duties.
Mr. D. BROWN explained.
The House then divided on the third reading of the Bill.
Ayes, - - 93
Noes, - 26
Majority
Several clauses were then added, and the Bill passed.
CLERGY RESIDENCE.
On bringing up the Report of the Clergy Residence Bill,
Sir JOHN NEWPOAT moved to add a clause to prevent
any Clergyman having a living of 401. from taking any other
Benefice.
Mr. GOULBURN opposed the clause. The Bight Hon.
Gentleman's amendment was one of a complicated nature, and
could not be carried into effect. He did not wish then to dis-
cuss the question of Church pluralities, but would merely say
it was a subject which ought to be the object of a separate
measure.
Mr. PLUNKETT considered pluralities entitled to the con-
sideration of the House, but it was impossible to deal with
pluralities in the Clause proposed by his Right Hon. Friend,
It would be almost impossible in some cases to ascertain the
real value of the first living. When the question of pluralities
came fairly before the house he should support it.
Mr. HUTCHINS:ON considered the Clergy Residence Bill