The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-04 00:00:00

had been prevented from appearing before the Commit-
tee, if a Member of that House, by writing to the Chair-
man, should be allowed to gratify his wish or pleasure
by giving information on the merits of the case.
Mr. HUME could only say, that if he were a Chair-
man or Member of a Committee, to whom application
had been made by a Member of that House to give in-
formation, he, for one, should insist upon his being exa-
mined. That Member would be subjected to a cross-
examination by the counsel in the case, and no difficulty
would therefore arise. _ _ _

Mr. DAItBY thought that a Member locally ac-
quainted with the facts brought before a Committee
ought to be allowed to take part in the proceedings of
that Committee.
Sir R. PEEL thought lit very important that there
should be some general understanding on this subject.
He presumed that no party would appear before any
Committee in respect of any matter of private interest,
except on the presentation of a petition. The Railway
Department of the Board of Trade was expressly pre-
cluded from making a report on matters of private inte-
rest. By the recommendation of the Committee of last
year, it was provided that the report of the Railway De-
partment of the B•iard ;of Trade should not be held to
prejudice the claims of private persons, the examina-
tion of which was altogether to be reserved to the
Houses of the Legislature. 'The report of the Railway
Department of the Board of Trade would, therefore,
give them no information on the subject of private
rights. He apprehended that questions of private rights
must arise on the presentation of petitions, • whether
those rights affected Members of Parliament or others.
Whether any sort of courtesy was to bo extended to
Members of Parliament, was another question; but
the common sense view of the question was, that
a Member of Parliament, sitting on a Com-
mittee of the House of Commons, merely ex-
ercised his functions as a Member of Parliament, and
no other. With respect to a Member being examined,
he could only say that if such a practice were allowed,
Members, under the pretence of being examined, would
be continually found making speeches.—(Laughter.) It
was quite clear that a Member of Parliament, not being
one of the five selected Members, had no more right to
interfere with that tribunal than with any other. On
the other hand, he did not see anything a hich precluded
the Chairman of the Committee, with the consent of the
Committee, if a Member stated that he had information
to give bearing materially on the public interests, and
not affecting matters of private right, from calling that
Member as a witness. In the case of private interests,
of course a petition must be presented, whether with re-
spect to the interests of a Member of Parliament or auy
other person. Now, supposin4 the case of two com-
peting lines, between which an understanding had been
come to respecting the interests of the public, and a
Member of Parliament tendered his evidence with re-
spect to that fact, of course the Committee would avail
themselves of such evidence.
After a few words of explanation from Mr. JERVIS,
Mr. STUART WORTLEY said he did not think
that if this privilege were extended to Members of Par-
liament, other parties could be prevented chiming simi-
lar privilege. Take the case of two competing lines—on
the close of the investigat on of those two lines, a third
and better line came into the field, but could not be
brought before Parliament, could they deny to those
third parties the privilege of offering evidence in opposi
tion to the first two lines?
Mr. BOUVERIE suggested that power should be
given to Committees to decide V 6 hich party should be at
liberty to commence the proceedings before the Cern-
mittee.
Mr. P. BORTHWICK thought that parties locally
interested ought to bn examined before that. Committee.
Mr. BERNAL said that in five cases out of six Mem-
bers would wish to attend Committees, not as witnesses,
but as the representatives of their constituents.
Mr. DARBY explained.
Lord JOHN MANNERS thought that it should be
left to the discretion of a Committee as to what witnesses
should be examined.
The resolution was then agreed to.
The following resolution was then proposed :—" That
in Committees on a Bill or Bills, when such evidence has
been given, it shall be within the competency of a Corn;
mittee to adjourn their proceedings until the Bill or
Bills for such other pro j, et shall be before them, care
being taken by the Committee of Selection that in all
such cases the Bills fur the so opposing projects shall be
referred to the Committee by which the first Bill or Bills
had been considered."

Air. JERVIS suggested that Members of Parliament
appearing before the Committee should be placed in the
same position as other witnesses.
Mr. FLUME thought that, when strangers were or-
dered to withdraw from a Committee-room, Members of
Parliament not on the Committee should be allowed to
remain.

Mr. SHAW thought it right that the Committee
should have all the evidence they thought proper to
enable them to come to a correct conclusion, no matter
whether that evidence was to be given by a Member of
Parliament or other person,
After a few words from Mr. S. WORTLEY,
Lord G. SOMERSET said he had a strong impres-
sion that the Committee should have the right of ex-
amining any'persous, whether they were promoters of
Bills or not. He did not think it could be a matter of
doubt that the Committee should have all the informa-
tion they deemed necessary ; and he was also of opinion
that a Member of Parliament had no more right than
any other person to force himself upon the Committee.
He thought the Committee might call him if justice
required it.—(Hear.)
Mr. W. I'ATTEN said he was prepared to vote furl
the resolution, but he thought great care and cautiox
was required on the part of the Committee, with regard
to adjournments, for he knew cases where advantage
was taken of them by the promoters of lines, for the
purp. se of procra'tination and delay. Unless great care
and caution were taken by the Committee in investi-
gating the claims of parties. neither the present resolu-
tions, nor any others, would enable them to get through
the regular business of the present session.
Mr. GREENE said that he knew there were many
objections which might be urged against the present
resolution, but it was the least objectionable course that
Could be adopted.
The resolution was then agreed to.
The remaining resolutions were then agreed to, without
any discussion.
Mr. HUME wished to know from the Noble Lord
(Lord G. Somerset) when the other resolutions would
be brought forward?
Lord G. SOMERSET hoped that he would be pre-
pared to bring them forward on Friday.
NOTICES OF MOTIONS—INDIRECT
TAXATION.

Mr. EWART gave notice that he would postpone his
motion on the subject of indirect taxation till this day
week.

BURDENS ON LAND.

Mr. WARD postponed his motion respecting the
burdens on land till this day fortnight.

INDIA.

Mr. HUME gave notice that he would postpone, till
after Eater, his motion for the production of papers
relating to the government of India by Lord Ellen-
borough.