The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-05 00:00:00

THE SAN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 5, 1845.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
Hon. Members were mistaken in supposing that there
were no means within the power of the House for recti-
fying this evil, for, in fact, there was ample power in
the House at the present moment for compelling the at-
tendance of Members when elected on a Committee, and
also for compelling Members to serve before they had
been elected, so that no further powers were necessary.
The resolution, after some farther discussion, was
agreed to.
The 18th resolution, firing the hour of the meeting of
the Committees " not later than twelve o'clock," was
put, and, after a brief conversation, agreed to.
The 19th resolution, to the effect, " That parties
promoting railway projects which have been grouped
together by the Classification Committee, shall be per-
mitted to appear before the Committee on any railway
belonging to that group, and to offer evidence either
against the Bills immediately under the consideration of
the Committee, or in support of their own project."

Oa the resolution being put,
Mr. B A.NKES said on this, and the following resolu-
tions, he should offer a few remarks, and they would
have reference to the observations he had made at an
earlier period of the evening, when he spoke of the in-
convenience that would arise from the Members having
local knowledge being excluded from the Committees.
They had provided by this, and the following resolutions,
that, during the progress of the Committee, it should be
competent to a new party to come forward and give in-
formation to it either on the same Bill, or on a former
project, that may, or may not, be connected with the
plan proposed. Authority eves given to the Committee
to hearken to such further project, and it might adjourn
its proceedings, and give time for those others to alter
the plan then passing through its stages in the House,
the fresh project to come up to the Committee, and pro-
ceed, pari passu, with the scheme first proposed. But
suppose there was no such other party, and suppose it
happened that no other party was prepared to incur the ex-
pense of carrying on that other project, and that the first
project was a bad one ? That was the supposition
on which he had ventured to support the proposition
originally made, to allow Members having a local
knowledge to sit on the Committee, though they had no
vote. And when the Hon. Member for Lambeth asked
him what was his proposition, he replied, that this was
his proposition, that these Members should sit on the
Committee, though they had no vote. The Honourable
Member for Montrose alluded to these Members having
a personal and local interest and bias in the question ;
undoubtedly, all such influence ought to be excluded;
but local knowledge and local bias were things perfectly
distinct from each other, and if they excluded that
local knowledge, the result would be that they would
have bad plans instead of good ones, and if good ones
were proposed there would be a moral certainty of
greater expense. It must be borne in mind, that, under
existing circumstances, the impression abroad had
been, that the tribunal of the Board of Trade
had much greater influence than it had proved
really to have. The consequence was, that
[fluty of the second projects that had been sup-
pressed were arising again, and they would have to
come before this Committee, which would have to sit
twice as long, at twice the expense to the parties, with
no means of judging of the real merits of the rival
schemes, if the local -Members were not allowed to be on
the Committee. Members would not attend on that Com-
mittee when they were not certain in what character
they would be received. It must be observed, too, that
these Members would probably be engaged on other
Committees, and corAd not be lounging abort the COM-
mittee-rooms where they bad no business, without know-
ing if they had a chance of being heard. That was not
A position in which Members would place themselves.
The Hon, Member for Montrose had been pleased to say
that he (Mr. Bankes) had spoken of the interests of the
poor in connexion with this subject ; he begged to
assure the lion. Member that he had not said any such
-thing. He had spoken of the interests of the public,
which included both rich and poor. He should not have
found fault with the Honourable Member's saying
that be had spoken on behalf of the inte-
rests of the poor, if he had not accompanied
his statement with something like a sneer—(No, no,
from Mr. Hume)—which, from the generally good•
humoured tone adopted by the Hon. Member in that
House, he believed was not intended. But he would
tell the Hon. Member something he had just heard be-
fore he came into the House ; it was a case that had
occurred, not in his own county, but in the county ad-
joining it.. A railway was proposed, and the line of it cut
across an extensive district on which the poor had a right
of pasturage. The question that had been put to him
(Mr. Bankes) with respect to this line was this:—Were
these poor persons entitled to the same notice as the
rich would have, with regard to their rights ? He (Mr.
Bankes) said he humbly conceived they were ; and he
hoped they were. But let him tell the Hon. Member
for Montrose, that if those Members having local know-
ledge were excluded, the Hon. Gentleman who had told
him this would not have the power to state the case of these
poor men before the Committee. It was in particular refe-
rence to the information that might be so given, that he
had made these observations to the House. He was well
aware of the great attention that had been bestowed on
this subject, and that all these circumstances had been
weighed before the House decided as it had decided.
But in spite of that decision he maintained his opinion,
that Members possessing a local knowledge ought not to
be excluded from the Committees ; on the contrary, they
ought to be required to attend ; and unless ho were ex-
cluded, as he should be if this resolution were carried
into effect, he should feel it his duty to attend the Com-
mittee in cases of this description.
Mr. HUME wished to assure the Hon. Member
that the case he alluded to had been especially well con-
sidered. He held in his hand the examination of the
Duke of Richmond, who had taken the lead in
establishing the Committee of five, in the House of
Lords, as an experiment. The Duke of Richmond
was examined as to the working of that Committee,
and proved that the dispatch of business by it was as 5 to
15 compared with the former Committees. If the Lion.
Member would take the trouble of reading the evidence,
he would find that the experiment of limiting the
number of the Committee had been attended witlicom-
plete success. lie -could tell the lion. Member that he
would not be prevented from attending the Committee ;
any Member might attend any Committee, and no
Committee, except a secret one, could exclude him.
In the examination of the Duke of Richmond, his
Grace was asked if he thought the plan of taking
five Members as the Committee, totally un-
acquainted with the case except from the
evidence, had tended to secure a decision
free from partiality or bias. The Duke's reply stated
that it had been found better to form the Committee of
Peers having no connexion with the localities, who
should act as a jury, deciding only on the evidence
brought before them. To the question whether a Peer,
not connected with the case itself, but with the locality,
if he wished to appear and give local evidence, could do
so, the reply was that he could not, except as a witness,
be allowed to speak, but he might attend, as strangers
attended. He (Mr. Hume) thought this completely met
he case, and he did beseech the House to allow the
complete success that had attended this course to induce
them to adopt it, and he believed it would be as successful
in that House as in the other. •
Mr. MILES said, in cases where there was great
ambiguity and contradiction in the evidence brought
forward, he should wish the Committee or the Chairman
to have the power, before coming to a decision, of calling
before them any persons connected with the localities, of
practical knowledge of the different lines, and who had
no connexion whatever with the different projects, who
should be able to give evidence, not taken on oath, on-
which they could rely. In the reports that had been
pa sented to the House, he had found that, however
difficult the question had been, and, notwithstanding
there had been a little outcry at first from the defeated
party, in competing Bills, the decisions had been
regarded as fair and honest decisions, which was pre-
cisely what they wished to arrive at.
Mr. WARD said if Members of the House, not on
the Committee, were to attend and give evidence, it
would protract the business usqne ad nauseam. He did
not see what woul.d be the use of the power which the
Hon. Member wished to give to the Chairman. It would
be the same with the proposition of the Hon. Member for
Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes) ; in every Committee-room
there would be Members fighting a local battle, and
tukrng up points of interest to their constituents ; this
would be another source of difficulty find delay, and it
would he impossible for the House to come to any deci-
sion. He concurred in the general principle of the plan
before them ; he considered it a great additional step in
the right direction.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER quite
agreed that difficulties were likely to arise from the at-
tendance of Gentlemen locally interested. But the diffi-
culty he felt did not so much relate to competing lines,
as the injury that might be done to the property of
private individuals of small means, by a railroad being
taken in one direction in preference to another, in order
to suit particular interests, when these parties might be
obliged to submit to injury without the power of re-
sis,ance. He thought if Members of the House were
et liberty to attend and offer themselves as evidence,
and furnish statements of facts, it would provide a re-
medy for a great source of evil.
Mr. S. WORTLEY wished to know whether there
was any particular right in Peers and Members of Par
liament to give their evidence before these Committees ;
lie maintained that a Member could not attend as a
witness unless he were called by one of the parties, and if
he e ere so called, he stood in precisely the same po-
sition as any other witness.
Mr. HUME —The Chairman can call him.
Mr. S. WORTLEY contended that the Chairman had
no right to call him ; he could only be called by one of
the parties before the Committee. Suppose all parties
objected to his evidence being taken ? Therefore, he
elainteincd that the assumption that a Member could
ttetel, was one of very questionable foundation; in fact,
ac did not think it heti any foundation at all.
Mr. SHAW said lie was last year the Chairman of a
Conienittee, in a case where there were two competing
line e The Hon. Member for Bedfordshire, although
tie was nut on that Conunittee, sat with it ; he was not
called by either of the parties, but he was called on by
him (Mr. Shaw) as Chairman, he was examined, and
gave the Committee very important evidence. lie was
not called by either party, but hi; evidence was of great
imp xtance to all.
Mr. JERVIS confessed he saw some difficulty in the
course p out by the lion. and Learned Recorder
of Dablin. The effect of it would be, that parties pro-
moting bills would be taken by surprise by the evidence
brought before the Commitcee, because no petition having
been pracnted on the subject, they would be unprepared
to meet the evidence they adduced.
Sir W. lA3IES thought it would be a hardship upon
the party who had an interest in any concern, and who
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 Ovine information on the merits of the case.
Mr. 111.11 IE could only say, that if he were a Chair-
man or Member of a Committee, to whom application