The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-08 00:00:00

MANCHESTER RAILWAY.

Mr. WILSON PATTEN moved the second reading
of this Bill.

Mr. ESTCOURT would just mention that there
were two Bills before the House, and that an application
had been made to the Committee of Selection to appoint
the Committee on one of those Bills. Upon that appli-
cation being made he immediately sent to the agent
for the other Bill, to know if he was ready. His reply
was, that he should not be ready for some time—the
consequence was, that a great hardship was inflicted upon
the parties who were ready at once to go before the
Committee.

Mr. GLADSTONE said, that if parties, for the pur-
pose of creating delay, should be found to take advan
tage of the rule of that House, which provided that
Bills for competing railway lines should be referred to
the same Committee, he thought some measure ought
to be adopted to prevent such a course being taken.
After a short discussion the Bill was read a second
time.

NEWPORT DOCKS BILL.
Mr. BLEWITT brought in the Newport Docks Bill,
which was read a first time.
COMMITTEES ON RAILWAY BILLS,

Mr. HINDLEY rose to move the following resolu•
tion --That any Member, whose constituents are locally
interested in any competing Lines of Railway, may be
permitted to sit upon the Committee appointed to decide
upon their respective merits, though without being
allowed to vote upon any quastion arising thereon.
The House, by the resolution to which they had come
the other evening, on the subject of the constitution
of committees on railway Bills, had, in fact, given up the
representation of their constituents altogether. Be ad-
mitted that it was perfectly right that the Members who
had a personal interest in private Bills should be ex-
cluded from the Committees ; but with regard to the
representatives of local interests, their case rested upon
a very different footing. To whom would the country
look for the defence of their local interests, ex-
cept to their respective representatives ? The House
had stultified itself by the resolutions it had come to
on that subject. •Did they mean to say that a Member
who represented local interests, had not sufficient know-
ledge or public spirit to give an honest vote. The real
secret was that certain Hon. Members had not the moral
courage, while they saw two parties among their con-
stituents, to offend either of the parties, and therefore
they were exceedingly glad to shirk their duty.
The presence of the local Member on a Committee u ould
tend to check some of the back stairs influence that now
prevailed, and that Member would act under the control
of public opinion. He thought they had departed from
the open English principle in the resolution they had
adopted. If the constituents did not approve of his
conduct they had the remedy in their own hands.
He thought it would be right that the local interest of par-
ticular places should be consulted in such matters, and
that Committees should not be deprived of the advan-
tages of hearing the arguments of those well acquainted
with the details of the matter.
Mr. P. BORTHW ICK having seconded the motion,:
Mr. GLADSTONE said he thought the resolution now
introduced by the Hon Gentleman was superfluous. He
thought the grounds taken in support of his position by the
Hon. Gentleman opposite were quite useless, and he would
even say almost invidious; for in Committees, upon any
other subject, no such powers were ever called for. If
such a power was allowed to exist in the present instance,
a great deal of inconvenience would arise, because a
great many of those gentlemen who now proposed
to have the right of attending those Committt es
would be actuated by different and discordant interests.
Ile trusted that the House would feel no hesitation in
negativing the motion.
Mr. W. PATTEN was extremely glad to hear what
had fallen from his Right Hon. Friend. There had been
a great difference in Committees as:to:whether Members
were to be allowed to attend and represent the inte-
rests of their constituents. He thought that if it had
been known at the time when the measure was introduced
that Members would have the power of stating the case
of their constituents who were not able to appear by
counsel, many who ,supported the measure would have
voted against it on that express ground.
Mr. LABOUCHERE agreed in substance with what
had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman. He was
not aware, however, that any Member of Parliament had
a right to address the Committee on behalf of his con-
stituents. His impression had hitherto been that the
right extended only to attending the Committee, and
there was the greatest risk of inconvenience through
protracting the proceedings of the Committee unneces-
sarily if any other principle were adopted. Perhaps the
Speaker would be good enough to state to the House
what was the practice of Parliament in reference to this
matter.

Mr. GLADSTONE said he had not meant to state
that any Member had an absolute right to address the
Committee ; all he had meant to say was that practically
no objection was felt to the making of a statement.
The SPEAKER wished to observe in reply to the
question of the Right lion.. Gentleman, that no Member
who was not a Member of the Committee had any right
to interfere with the proceedings. He had no right to
examine witnesses though he might be present in the room.
Dr. BOWRING said that regulation which prevented
Members from interfering with the proceedings of Select
Committees on Railroads, upon which they were
not appointed, had given great satisfaction, and he
thought it was desirable to extend the rule to all other
Select Committees as well AS Egilway Committees,