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

NEW POOR-LAW.

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

Mr. C. BULLER presented a petition from Liskeard
against the Poor Removal Act passed last session.
GOVERNMENT MEASURES.
_

Mr. DILLON BROWNE wished to ask the Noble
Lord when it wss 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 fur
Ireland into consideration?
Lerd JOHN RUSSELL said it was his intention
to proceed w ith the poor-law on Monday
next, and he believe d 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.
ACCO ‘IMODATION 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 atteinled in the House of Com-
mons.—(Cheers from both sides of the House.) Ile
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
lion. Gentleman had given notice of these questions,
and he was, therefore, not prepared to answer them.
Mr. lIUME (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 beappointed 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 Commit-
ttee 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
were these. 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 relating 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-
tively ; 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 eave a list of
the Members whom they had appointed fur the Select
Committee. That list was submitted to the Parlia-
mimuLy agents on both sides, that is, to the agents of
the Wat Western and of the South-Western Companies.
He had understood that, this list 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 mom
bers whom they had appointed to serve on the Com

natte.e, 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 eircurnstarice, 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 mern
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 I
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 he 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, ho 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 Hon. 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 for doing so. Only two
answers, however, were received—one from the

Great Western Company, and the other
fr:,in 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, he 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 he 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 names were published in the papers of that
House should be entitled to protection. He had
hoped that his Honourable Friend opposite would have
come down and admitted that the Committee were in
error in having received these objections as valid, with-
uhuatd gadivoiputgedr.easZarteospHecotne.dAhleimmsbiirfs theiffotrhec Committee
ocmoumrsitete ofhey
Selection had applied to him,
hee' would at Once say
whether either party had any just cause of objection to
him. But when he stated that in neither of these
COUI.