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

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

concerneil. Members on private Committees should bq
es free from all bias or prejudice, and local interests as
men in the jury box.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the
present one of the most salutary regulations that had
been introduced into the House. The principle had
worked well, and ought to be pursued. He was sur-
prised that any Member should object to so useful a re-
solution. He would give it his hearty support.
Mr. HAWES said that it was very important that
there should be entire unanimity on this question. He
thought the clear and indisputable meaning of the
resolution was, not that Members should
pledge themselves that no individual number
of their constituencies bad a personal interest,
but that the constituency, as a body, had no local inte-
rest.—(Hear, hear.) Those who had opposed the reso
lution had not proposed any other course. If the evi-
dence of Members was desirable it could be given with
much more weight and solemnity as witnesses, and the
decisions of the Committees would thus have greater
weight on the public mind.
Mr. S. WORTLEY said it was impossible for the re-
solution to be practically and usefully carried out, unless
the construction put upon it by the Hon. Member fur
Lambeth was agreed upon. He entirely concurred with
the Hon. Member in the observations that had fallen
from him.

Mr. ROEBUCK approved of the general plan pro-
posed in the resolution, and concurred in the view taken
of it by the Mon. Member fir Lambeth. It would be
better, he thought, to leave it to the Select Committee
to say whether the constituency of such and such a
Menst,er had a local interest or not. _ _ _

Lord G. SOMERSET said the Committee had already
bad sufficient responsibility thrown upon them.
Lord H. VA NE thought the 10th resolution would
get rid of the difficulty.
Mr. SHAW suggested that the word " believed"
should be introduced into the declaration. It was not
always in the power of an Hon. Member to say distinctly
whether his constituency had, or had not, any local in-
terest in a particular undertaking. For instance, an in-
dividual constituent might have an interest, and yet his
representative would not be aware of it. But this diffi-
culty would be done away with, if he had only to declare
that he believed his constituency had no local interest.
After a few words from Mr. GISBORNE and Mr.
CoLLErr,
Sir R. PEEL, said a distinction was made in the reso-
lution between the local interest of a constituency and
the personal interest of an individual Member or a con-
stituent.
The resolution was then agreed to, as were also
5 and 6.

On resolution 7 being put,
Mr. GISBORNE wished to ask whether he was right
in supposing that no railway Bills would be committed
before Easter. At the same time he should be glad to
know if the whole of the reports of the Board of Trade
would be made before Easter. He would not detain the
House with any observations on the subject of these re-
ports, because he believed there would be another oppor
tunity afforded the House for considering them.
Lord G. SOMERSET replied that the whole of the
reports would be made before Easter, but he did not
think any of the railway Bills would be committed be-
fore Easter; at all events, none of them of any import-
ar.he. He was pledged to the Hon. Member for Lam-
beth to give the House an opportunity of stating their
opinion with regard to the railway department of the
Board of Trade.
Mr. HAWES thought the railway department of the
Board of Trade, as it now stood, was very unsatis-
factory. He would take that opportunity of suggesting
whether a Board possessing such extensive powers ought
not to be an open tribunal. It might, in his opinion,
be regulated, under certain rules and regulations, in the
same way as a court of law, whose judgments and de-
cisions were invariably delivered in the presence of all
parties interested. At present, however, the Board
gave their decisions to the public without its being
known whether the objections urged on both sides had
been fairly considered or not, and this was evidently
not a satisfactory mode of dealing with matters of such
vital importance to the public interest. Besides, it
would put an end to the unpleasant surmises indulged
in respecting the partiality of any particular Member for
this or that railway. He was not prepared to say to
what extent this publicity should be carried, but cer-
tainly some measure ought to be adopted to attach more
responsibility to the Beard.
Sir R. PEEL could hardly think the Hon. Member
contemplated any alteration in the constitution or
bearing upon the peculiar functions of the Board so far
as the present year was concerned.—( Hear, hear.) Before
they could make this alteration not only would the
opinion of the Board itself be known with respect to
particular lines, but the reports themselves would be
being discussed in a Committee appointed to inquire
into the merits of competing lines; and, therefore, to
make any alterations in that Board, which could have
any effect upon the regulations of the present year, would
be exceedingly unwise. The Hon. Gentleman he hoped,
then, would agree with him, that any question relating
to the constitution of the Board had better be deferred.
His firm belief was, whether the tribunal were secret or
not, the degree of weight or authority of the decision
would entirely depend upon the reasons which the
Board should give in support of their conclusion.
His Hon. Friend, who sat in the other House, had de-
voted a deal of his time to the Presidency of the Board, in-
deed he did not think any public man ever entered upon
the discharge of his duties with greater determination
to go fully into the subject to be submitted to him, nor
did he think the functions committed to him could have
been discharged with more attention or greater ability.
—(Hear, hear.) He believed the various members of
the Board were eminently qualified to assist in coming
to a sound conclusion as to the general merits of two
competing lines.—(Hear, hear.) H knew nothing what-
ever of the real proceedings of the Board, except what he
read in their published reports. He had read the
report issued on Monday upon the merits of a particular
line, which certainly did appear to him to afford most
important information. Alteration and improvement
were there suggested, which they never could have ob-
teined through the medium of any other tribunal than
the Board of Trade. He strongly recommended Hon.
Gentlemen to read the report of the Board of Trade
upon the question of gradients. and the manner of over-
coming the disadvantages which had hitherto been
thought to be insuperable, on account of the sudden rise
of railroads. It was then stated that on the Birming-
ham and Gloucester line there was going to be established
a locomotive engine, peculiarly adapted to raise heavy
weightslupon railroads as a substitution for the stationary
engine.—(Hear.) It was clearly a most important report
as bearing upon future railway legislation, and he very
much questioned whether a Committee reporting upon a
railroad could have supplied half the information. Be-
fore Easter they would have got all these reports before
them, and to make any alteration iu the present Board
before that time would be injudicious. Judging from the
nature of the report, their arguments and their reason-
ing he certainly must say strongly influenced him in
favour of the tribunal.—(Hear. hear.) At all events he
did not think it would be possible to make any altera-
tion for the better in the constitution of that Board.
The Hon. J. S. WORTLEY did not think any mate-
rial alteration could be made in the constitution of the
railway department of the Board of Trade.—(Hear,
hear.) Before, however, he entered upon the subject,
perhaps the Hon. Member for Lambeth would per-
mit him to suggest that the question which the Ho-
nourable Member had brought forward should
be deferred till a later period of the session, and then
let the matter be brought regularly before the House.—
(Hear, hear.) The reports of the Board of Trade were
about to be sent before a Committee of merit, and until
they knew the results of their practical investigations he
did not think it advisable to alter the constitution of
the Board.
Mr. HORS?./lAN said that his Hon. Friend had ad--
duced nothing serious against the character of that
Board, or the soundness of the reports that had emanated
from them, and he hoped that if his lion. Friend revived
the question of the constitution of that tribunal it would
be during the hours of public business.—(Rear, Lear.)
What had been asserted of their mode of discussion
was proved to be incorrect by the fact that it
was necessary for the President or Vice-President to
have three Hon. Members to assist him with their ad-
vice. What had first given rise to any credit being
given to the suspicions expressed as to the motives by
which the Board was actuated, was its having amongst
its Members sonic Gentleman who had no public name
or standing. The proceedings of last session had shown
that in those transactions much opposition might be
expected to be raised against these reports, by disap-
pointed and prejudiced parties. At the same time,
he could not help feeling that the absence of a public
man soiree het justified these suspicions.
Mr. CUI{TEIS said that he had a letter from one of
his constituents, who was exceedingly well versed in
railway matters, complaining of the limited period
allowed for inspecting the plans and sections of pro-
posed railway lines. The office for that purpose was
only open, he believed, for two hours a day, thus en-
tailing an accumulation of business that was most un-
satisfactory and annoying. He also complained of
the exorbitantly high charges made for leave to inspect
them. For every reference made to those plans, the
parties so referring were charged about six shillings
while in other courts, such as in the Clerk of the Peace,
an inspection of papers would cost no more than about
one shilling.
An HoN. Mamma said the office for the purpose of
permitting a reference to plans of railways was open
from ten to four, thus giving a clear six hours of aecom
modation to parties seeking intiremation on the subject,
and therefore the complaint, in one particular at least,
was overcharged.
The SPEAKER then real a series of resolutions,
which were individually agreed to, until he came to that
making the attendance of Members on Committee meet-
ings compulsory; when
Mr. pERNAL rose. He did not know whether it
was proposed to compel the attendance of Members in a
similar manner as with Election Committees. At present
they could only compel the attendance of Members in
that particular case. They could not, for instance,
make them attend in the formation of public roads, or
in other de,criptions of private, business. The passing
of this resolution would be imposing a very great hard-
ship on many Hon. Members, and he would only wish
them to consider the annoyance to Hon. Members who
would require to go the circuits, or who were engaged
in other avocations. They would, by-and-bye,bere-
ceiving excuses from Hon. Members, and they would be
required to admit them, too, from those gentlemen who
went the northern and western circuits. And then the
lengthened inconvenience many of those Railway Com-
mittees might endure for an extraordinary time. Ile would
venture to say, and Hon. Members might be surprised,
if some of the contested Irish railways . should last for
three months--(Laughter.) Were those excuses to be
taken, or was the House to admit the legality of those
excuses ? Then, what were they to do with all those
Railway Committees ? The attending upon them was
not one of those regular duties to which Hon. Members
were expected to be subjected to. Tree it was, that
railways were now become a great element in the wel-

fare and general disposition of the wealth of the country,
and with that resolution could they hope to overtake
the 284 railways that were to be considered and decided
upon in that session. There had never been such a
rush of railway speculations, and he (Mr. Bern .1) could
foresee much difficulty in settling those matter 4, unless
they acceded to the proposition of the Hon. M mber for
Lambeth, or at least constituted a tribunal wi.h powers
of a somewhat similar character. He was opposed to
the resolution.
Mr. WARBURTON asked if the Hon. Member
meant that the House should at once abdicate the per-
formance of the duties which were essential for carrying
on the business of the country. He (Mr. Warburton)
was very confident that unless the House did its duty in
this particular, the country would soon inquire whether
the other departments were not equally neglected. How-
ov,,r inconvenient it might be to Hon. Members, when
entering the House they must be prepared to do what
the country required from them in the shape of business.
Notwithstanding the objections advanced by the Hon.
Member below him, he (Mr. Warburton) was very sure
that that Hon. Member himself would be one of the
very first to do his duty to his constituents and to his
country, by conforming to the very resolution now under
discussion.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said he was surprised that the
Hon. Member should advocate the expediency of con-
stituting another tribunal to discharge those duties
which it was the peculiar province of the House to
attend to. They might rest assured, that if there were
to be such another tribunal—a tribunal having the power
of Government, and giving force to law—if private
business were to be left to this tribunal, he repeated,
that the House of Commons would very soon regret
that they had committed the powers which belonged
only to Parliament, to such a tribunal. What was to
be its constitution—what its representative character ?
It was the first time that a proposition bad been made in
that House to transfer the duties peculiar to that House to
a tribunal out of doors, and to register its decisions as if
they emanated from the representatives of the country.
Were they to have no power of reversing its decisions?
—(llear, hear.) Were they about to constitute a power,
which would soon assume to itself a hostile character ?
He could hardly justify the proposition made
by the Honourable Member for Weymouth (Mr.Bernal).
Were they to adopt a measure so pregnant with evil to
the liberties of that House ? They had the opportunity
of recommending themselves to their constituents., and
of exalting the character of the House of Commons in
the eyes of the country, by a determination to devote
themselves to the performance of those duties; and he
did believe that the good sense and the right feeling of
lion. Members would preclude the necessity for any ex-
position of the evil of the Hon. Member's proposition.
The House of Lords had deputed five of its Members to
consider private Bills—and were they, the House of
Commons, to complain because they were also called
upon to attend for the business of the country? He (Sir
R. Peel) should be ashamed if it were said that they,
the representatives of the country, had a judge sitting
in another place to adjudicate upon what it was their
duty to have done. Let them at once resolve to adhere
to their duties. He (Sir R. Peel) would come down to
that House and sit for four or six hours each day
on a Railway Committee, rather than that opposition
should be carried by the House. If they did not demur
to their attendance on Election Committees, why should
they, in the matter of private Bills? The House of
Commons would, if this principle were not carried out,
degenerate into a mere debating club. Would they say
that they would not attend at that House to examine
into the internal affairs of the country, while they were
ready to consume eight days in an adjourned discussion
—a mere question of party, involving no principle of pa-
ramount interest to the country. He repeated—
let them beware of the power that would grow
up beside them. If they allowed that tribunal to
discharge the duties which were peculiarly theirs,
they might be assured that not one year would
elapse before they would repent that they had consti-
tuted it. He would not listen to that doctrine, brought
forward for the first time, but he would fain hope that
the good sense of the House would negative it. He
ventured to say that this opportunity of making a
character for the House would not be lost sight of by
Hon. Members; and he would also venture to say, that
many Hon. Members who volunteered, under these cir-
cumstances, would, in two or three sessions, achieve a
higher character than other Hon. Members who spent
the greater part of the session in unprofitable debates in
the House. But he trusted that they would all be pe-
remptory in expressing la determination to overcome
that difficulty, and he was certain that nothing would
more tend to establish the confidence of the country
in that House, than by a steady adherence
to these duties, instead of a continuation of these debates,

which, if extended to the month of September, would
still be unprofitable. He hoped that the Right Hon.
Member would bring forward a motion, in order that
the good feeling of that House might at once extin-
guish it.
After a few words from Mr. HAWES in explanation,
Mr. P. BORTHWICK thought that the resolution
being compulsory took away any credit which might be
due to Hon. Members for this performance of their duty.
He thought the matter might be safely left to their own
honour. He thought that the high Roman virtue, so
ably advocated by the Right Hon. Baronet, would not be
the less exercised if left to the sense of Hon. Members.
Mr. HtJME said it was all very well to talk of Hon.
Members doing their duty, without its being compulsory
on them to do so. The Hon. Member opposite spoke of
Roman virtue. He (Mr. Hume) did not doubt that the
Hon. Member would exercise it, but be knew many on
that (the Liberal) side of the House, who might
not be so certainly relied on. What was every-
body's business was nobody's business—(Laughter)--
and he (Mr. Hume) thought it was certainly the duty
of that House, as a collective body, to provide that the
business of the House should be properly done. He re.
gretted that the Hon. Member had broached such a pro-
position, and he thought the Right Hon. Baronet had
done himself great honour by his conduct on that as on
previous occasions. Let them suppose that witnesses
had been summoned from Yorkshire on a private Bill,
was it to be supposed that they would come without a
certainty of having some tribunal to go before. He
was certain that the character of the House had been
lowered by these private Committees—(Cheers and
counter-cheers)—and it was high time that they should
retrieve that character. He did not blame individual
Members—it was the system he reprobated. He hoped
this resolution would be carried, for he held that Hon.
Members should take everything in turn, and if lawyers
could not find time to attend to the duties of that House
they should not have entered it.
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY thought that the resolution
was more peremptory than the necessity of the case re-
quired. With respect to election committees, they were
acting under the authority of the Act of Paz liament ;
and they were aware by a preliminary notice that their
attendance would be required on such a Committee,
and it was only after an answer had been returned to
that official notice that Hon. Members were appointed.
Colonel SIBTHORP said that the Hon. Member for
Montrose had stated that no Hon. Member should enter
that House unless he was prepared to fulfil its duties. He
(Col. Sibthorp) had not seen the Hon. Member for Mon-
trose in the House that day, or on previous days when
property to a very great amount had been disposed of.
Hundreds and housands of pounds were voted away in
that House, and the strictest attendance was therefore
required on the part of Hon. Members, but as long as
those votes did not affect self, it was all very well. Some
Hon. Members had shares in railways, and it was very
easy to vote away a million of money when it did not
eoncern themselves personally. He was glad to perceive
that an order was to be issued compelling the Mem-
bers of the House of Commons to attend in their places,
andle, for one, had no objection to the resolution.
Mr. DARBY protested against the aspersions which
had been cast upon the Sect et Committees of that House.
He did not think them justified by the facts, and, as far
as his own experience went, he was prepared to repel
the imputation. He believed that, on the question of
railways, the strongest feelings would ever be evinced.
and that no matter what the tribunal were, imputations
would still be cast upon it by prejudiced and disappointed
parties.
Lord G. SOMERSET said that the conveniences and
inconveniences attendant upon this subject had been
amply corsidered, and they had thought it better, on the
VT hole, to make the order compulsory, than, perhaps, to
meet pro forma and do nothing.
Mr. GREENE said that it was very true that it was
impossible to obviate the inconvenience under present cir-
cumstances ; but what course was to be taken in respect to
those Members who positively refused to serve on Com-
mittees at all? It was necessary that Members should
he compelled to attend, for if a system were to be
adopted, it was better that it should be abided by, or it
was no system at all. It was better to have no system.
than to have a system that was ineff.,ctual to enforce the
duty of those who were involved in it. How would they
compel the attendance of Members on Committees ?
There were 250 Members of that House who positively
reused to serve on any Committee, and he felt that,
unless there was a requisition, which was sufficiently
weighty to compel their attendance, the whole system
aas faulty, and would fall to the ground.
Mr. PROTHEROE said, that in consequence of
having come late into the House, he felt that he was
hardly entitled to take part in the debate; but one thing
had struck him. He thought that there was something
more necessary than to adjudicate that Members should
sit on Committees. It was necessary not only that they,
should be Members. but that some means were ne-
cessary to compel their attendance when they were
elected for that purpose. But in order to do this,
they must take care that measures were adopted
that conflicting duties should not render the attend-
ance of Members impossible. Last session he had
teen a Member on one of these private Committees ;
but during its sitting his attendance was required on a
local Committee. His Hon. Friend the Member for
Wakefield had been in the same circumstances with him-
self. He had been called to attend the West Riding
Committee, when his presence was required in the pri-
vate Committee. Some means ought to be adopted to
obviate this inconvenience.
Sir WALTER JAMES said that the refusal of
Members to attend on these Committees was a great
evil, and he did not doubt but that it caused great con-
fusion and impedirm nt in the consideration of railway
Bills. Another evil was, the effect which the refusal
occasioned, and that was, that the refusal of these Mem-
bers to serve had the effect of working other Members
to such an extent that it was likely to work them to
death. There were 250 Members who never came into
the House at all for anything, and unless the system
wore carried out it was worth nothing. The attendance
should either be free and voluntary or compulsory.
Mr. FERRAND said that it was unfortunate that
theretoattend on were no means of punishing those who refused
nat nhd ye
n greatof
thtehseesec numberoCmomm mtotfei tet2s7
os
and.
m It
htmeba ptehrpose
uawrghehdot
trlei
ta..ot t.ehde rt eo
watates
that if this evil was not remedied by the Government,
the House should take the measure into its 'own hands
and provide a. remedy itself.

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, fixing 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
bel"nging 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."

On the resolution being put,
Mr. B ANKES 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 was 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 thi ough 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
many 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 could not be lounging abo It 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 Hon. 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 he 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 he 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 Hon.
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 with com-
plete success. He could tell the Hon. Member that he
would not be prevented from attending the Committee ;
any Member might attend any Committee, and no
Co:nmittee, 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,
he allowed to speak, but he might attend, as strangers
attended. He (Mr. Hume) thought this completely met
the 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
pr+ 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 tho 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 usque ad nauseam. He did
not see what would 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
taking up points of interest to their constituents ; this
would be another source of difficulty and delay, and it
would be 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-
sistance. He thought if Members of the House were
:it 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 ;
he maintained that a Member could not attend as a
witness unless he were called by one of the parties, and if
he were 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
maintained that the assumption that a Member could
attend, was one of very questionable foundation; in fact,
he did not think it had. any foundation at all.
Mr. SHAW said he was last year the Chairman of a
Committee, in a case where there were two competing
lines. The Hon. Member for Bedfordshire, although
he was not on that Committee, 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. He was
not called by either party, but his evidence was of great
imp wtance to all.
Mr. J ERVIS confessed he saw some difficnity in the
course pointed out by the Hon. and Learned Recorder
of Dublin. The effect of it would be, that parties pro-
moting bills would be taken by surprise by the evidence
brought before t he Commitceo, because no petition having
been presented on the subject, they would be unprepared
to meet the evidence they adduced.
Sir W. JAMES 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 giving information on the merits of the case.
Mr. HUME could only say, that if he wore 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. DA ttBY 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 sit 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 Board '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 be 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 which 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 any
other person. Now, supposing 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 claiming simi-
lar privilege. Take the case of two competing lines—on
the close of the investigation 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 which party should be at
liberty to commence the proceedings before the Com-
mittee.
Mr. P. BORTHWICK thought that parties locally
interested ought to be 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. DARiIY 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 Com-
mittee to adjourn their proceedings until the Bill or
Bills for such other project shall be before them, care
being taken by the Committee :of Selection that in all
such cases the Bills for the so opposing projects shall be
referred to the Committee by which the first Bill or Bills
had been considered."
Mr. JERVIS suggested that Members of Parliament
appearing before the Committee should be placed in the
same position as other witnesses.
Mr. HUME 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 persons, 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. PATTEN said he was prepared to vote for
the resolution, hut he thought great care and caution
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
purpose of procrastination and delay. Unless great care
and caution were taken by the Committee in investi-
gating the claims of parties, neither the present resola-
lions, 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.
Theother resolutions were then agreed to, without any
discussion.
Mr. HUME wished to know from the Noble Lord
(Lord G. Somerset) when the remaining 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. ENVART 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. lIUME gave iiotice that he would postpone, till
after Easter, his motion for the prodnetion of papers
relating to the government of India by Lord Ellen-
borough.

no doubt that the allotment system would pay itself. A
notion seemed to exist, end it would probably be
strengthened by the Settlement Bill of the Right Hon.
Gentleman, that the parish had nothing to do with the
relief of the poor, that it was a union and not a parochial
matter. Now, why should not the augmentation of the
parish system be taken advantage of, to give assistance to
the independent labourer, and to enable him to live more
comfortably and securely.—(Hear, hear.) It was not
necessary that he should say anything generally in sup-
port of the allotment system, for experience seemed now
to have p'aced the merits of that system beyond
cavil or doubt. He had never heard any ob-
jection whatever drawn from practical experience.
Nobody who had tried the allotment system had ever,
he believed, found any harm arising from it, even if no
good resulted from its operation; and, he believed, that
under proper regulations no complaints would ever he
made. The objections made were rather of a theoretical
and speculative than of a practical character. One ob-
jection was that it was opposed to sound economic views
of labour, that a man should work for himself as well as
his master. A satisfactory answer to that would be
that the labouring man should be enabled to obtain
higher wages, and then he would not need such a re-
source. Unfortunately, however, the wages of the la-
bouring classes in the agricultural districts were
not sufficient to allow them to live as comfortably as
could be desired, and that the system in
question was necessary to assist them in obtaining a
livelihood. Ile did not admit, however, in an economic
view, that it was undesirable that the labourer should
employ his leisure hours in tilling a garden. There
was no more profitable way of tilling ground than by a
spade, particularly when wielded by a man who was
tilling his own ground. The produce of allotment-
ground must, too, be much greater than that of ground
tilled under any other circumstances. If a labouring
man chose to employ his leisure hours in this manner,
it must be of the utmost advantage, not only to himself,
but to the country at large ; what it produced being the
means of increasing the whole amount of food in the
country. He was not aware that any man had ever become
idle under this system during the hours employed in
working for his master, in order that he might be more
active in labouring for himself. On the contrary, he
beieved it had generally been found that the allotment
labourers were the most industrious portion of that class.
Not only were they the most moral—not only was their
general character the best, but they actually exerted
more power of sinew in their master's service than la-
bourers who did not employ their leisure hours in the
same manner as themselves. Another objection to the
allotment system was, that it tended to impede the cir-
culation of a free system of labour. If this ob-
jection were valid it did not apply to the allotment
of gardens in particular, but to everything that
had a tendency to improve the condition of the labour-
ing man.—(Hear, hear.) It applied to every act of
kindness, to every thing, in fact, that made the la-
bourer's situation more endurable than it was before.

If those who made this objection were consistent, they
should hold that the labouring man should be driven to
leave his parish, through his situation in it being made
unendurable. Though it might be very desirable in
many cases that labourers should go abroad, or remove
to another part of their own country, yet he did not
think they would be justified in refusing to afford
him those advantages which would render his condition
a more endurable one.—(Hear, hear.) It was
all very well for a man of capital to leave his country
and go elsewhere ; but when a labouring man did so,
starvation often stared him and his family in the face.
He did not think, that if the main object of the Bill
were approved, there would be anything in the details
on account of which it would be rejected by the House;
and if adopted, he believed it would confer very great
benefit, morally and physically, on the working classes.
With these observations he would leave the subject in
the hands of the House, and would move that leave be
granted to bring in the Bill.
Mr. MILES seconded the motion.
Mr. HUME said he approved of the Hon. Member's
proposition, if it could be carried out ; but he
very much feared that it never could, and therefore
there was no use in holding out expectations to the
country people that never could be realised. The Hon.
Member's proposition was in effect the proposal of an
enactment by which the allotment system should be con-
tinued and encouraged, though that was the very great
grievances which was so much complained of in Ireland.
At least, he (Mr. flume) had been led to understand
that in Ireland there was nothing that caused so great an
outcry, or had been looked upon as a greater grievance
than this allotment system, However, if gentlemen did
wish to let their lands in this way, he did think it would
be very easy to do so without any Act of Parliament.
Mr. ESCOTT said he could not see the necessity of
legislative interference upon the question at all, for if
landlords were inclined to let their lands in this way,
they could do so without any Act of Parliament. His
opinion was, that if a poor man got a cottage and a
small lot of ground, he would be just as well inclined to
make the most of it without any allotment at all. The
only means by which to prevent want amongst those
classes was to extend the demand for labour.
Lord J. MANNERS fully concurred in the observa-
tions of his Hon. Friend, and if they should be carried,
he did not think the working classes could ever be too
grateful for them.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD would not have
risen to speak upon this subject, but that he had heard
some allusion to his native country. In Ireland much
of the agrarian distress that prevailed had been owing
to this very system of allotment which then was called
the con-acre system, or half-acre, for which it was well
known as high as eight guineas an acre was paid.
Therefore he would caution the House against being
precipitate in legislating upon the subject.
Sir WALTER JAMES would have no objection to
support the motion, provided it were to be subsidiary to
wages ; if otherwise it would be found to be a dangerous
plan.
Mr. ROEBUCK did not rise for the purpose of enter-
ing upon the details of this proposition now ; but he
should say his opinion was, that if this bill should pass
in its present shape, it would have the effect of altering
the whole system by which the labouring classes at pre-
sent were regulated. Therefore he hoped that when this
Bill went into a second reading it would receive the
fullest consideration.

Sir J. GRAHAM was unwilling to detain the House,
but after the appeal which had been made to him by the
Hon. Member for Bath, he thought it necessary to re-
mind the House that when the Bill was brought in last
year he fully expressed his opinions about it. The Bill
at that time contained a provision that the poor-rates
should be made security for the rent. To that he did
most decidedly object—(Hear)—but that objectionable
clause was not introduced in the present measure. He
agreed with his Noble Friend the Member for Newark
(Lord J. Manners), that if the landlords would come
forward voluntarily and give allotments to their labourers,
legislative interference would be unnecessary. But in some
parts of the country that might be impossible ; and he
understood that it was intended to make this Bill only a
permissive measure—and, so far, he was not prepared to
off r it any opposition ; and, subject to that observation,
he was not prepared to object to its introduction. He
was, however, decidedly of opinion that an acre was too
much, and that he should prefer to limit the allotment
to half an acre. But, upon the whole, he thought it was
generally to the honour of the Hon. Member for Hert-
ford that he had given great consideration to the sub-
ject, and the House ought not lightly to refuse per-
mission to bring in the Bill.—(Hear, hear.) The dis-
tressed condition of the agricultural labourers was such
that it could not have escaped the attention of the House
—(Hear, hear)—and any measure having for its object
the improvement of that condition, demanded their best
attention. For his own part he would gladly consent to
the motion—(Hear, hear)—and he would give it every
attention and assistance, with the hope of some good
result.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. MANGLES wished to say a word in reply to an
observation made bythe Hon Member for Worcestershire,
who spoke disparagingly of the allotment system, and
said that the sufficiency of labour was all that was wanted
for the labourers. But the Hon. Member did not say
how that sufficiency was to be obtained. This he (Mr.
Mangles) knew, that he lived in a purely agricultural
district, and during the winter many labourers were
wholly out of employment. With respect to the allot-
ment system, he had during the recess made many in-
quiries, and the result was that he could not find one in-
stance in which it had failed.—(Hear, hear.) He had
been informed by one lady, Mrs. Davies Gilbert, that
she had during the last eleven years had 400 allotment
tenants, and not one of them had ever failed in paying
the rent. On a recent occasion he (Mr. Milnes)
attended at a meeting in West Surrey, and whilst
he and some other gentlemen were discussing this sub-
eject, an intelligent man, who had for a long time been
liitening in silence, at length broke in respectfully upon
their conversatien, and assured them that the system
was a good one, for it had made a man of him.—(Hear,
and a laugh.) That man afterwards took him to his
house and showed him that he had in the course of three
or four years risen to a state of comfort from that of a
mere labourer hardly este to keep his chin above water.
He had a comfortable house, several pigs, and a large
clamp of potatoes.—(Hear.) He (Mr. M.) differed from
the Right Honourable Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) and
thought that an allotment of one acre was by no means
too much. He would give his best support to the mea-
sure of the Hon. Member.
Mr. P. BORTHWICK expressed his satisfaction at
the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary
of State for the Home Department. The Hon. and
Learned Member for Bath had told the House to be
cautious how they sanctioned a measure which would
produce so great a change in the condition of the agri-
cultural labourers. That was precisely the reason why
he supported it, for any change in the condition of that
depressed class must be for the better.—(Hear.)
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
Mr. HUME moved for a return of the title of all
private Bills passed during the last session of Parliament,
together with the names of Parliamentary agents and
solicitors by whom such Bills were solicited and ob-
tained ; stating, also, the aggregate amount of their
bills of charges, under the separate heads for soliciting
and passing such Bills through Parliament ; stating,
also, how many of such bills have been taxed, and by
whom.
The Holt. MEMBER subsequently withdrew the mo-
tion, Mr. Cardwell expressing, on behalf of the Govern-
ment, his desire that all fees and expenses connected
with the House should be as moderate as possible. The
Hon. Member observed that he did not think any pro-
cess of taxation would remedy the evils the Hon. 11emt er
complained of.
After a few words from Mr. Escorr,
Mr. AGLIONBY recommended the Hon. Member
for Montrose to move at once for a Select Committee to
inquire into the subject.
Mr. HUME declined to follow the suggestion, imme-
diately, but on a future occasion he might, perils' s,
move for the Committee.
The motion was then withdrawn.
The other orders of the day were then dispc 'led of,
and the House adjourned at a Quarter to Twelve.

MISS CLARA SEY TON'S NEW
ENTERTAINMENT.
Miss Clara Seyton gave' her new Entertainment, last
evening, at Crosby Hall. It is entitled " Illustrations of
the Drama and the Opera," and is the first of a series
which, judging from the specimen of last evening, will
be most interesting. She began by some general ob-
servations on the objects of Poetry, and then drew a com-
parison between Dramatic and Epic Poetry, giving the
preference to the former. After some brief allusions to the
Greek Drama, she came to the revival of dramatic art
in modern times, in which revival the English took the
lead. This naturally brought her to Shakespere, and
the first musical illustration was the beautiful serenade
from Romeo and Juliet, set to music expressly Ibr this
entertainment, by Mr. T. Cooke. It is unnecessary
to dilate upon the qualifications of Mr. T. Cooke as a
musical illustrator of Shakespere. Who has not
heard, and who, having heard, has not br en
delighted with his music to the Midsummer Night's
Dream ? In the present instance his genius has not de
sorted him. It was indeed " music married," and
worthily " married to immortal verse," and was given by
hiss Clara Seyton, accompanied by herself on the harp,
in a style worthy of the poet and the composer. A short
account of the invaluable services of Shakespere in popu-
larising the history of his country brought the play of
Henry IV. under notice, and Hotspur's celebrated
description of a fop was recited with great gusto,
and was much applauded. From Shakespere to
his commentators the transition was easy.
Among these the most illustrious are Schl-gel
and Goethe—the latter himself a mighty poet,
and as a specimen of his poetry, his magnificent
ballad of the Erl King (set to music by Schubert)
was most effectively given. Returning from this slight
digression, the works of Beaumont and Fletcher came
under notice. A recitation from their play of " Love's
Pay image," was given as a specimen of their dramatic
p evers, while the song " Welcome, sweet liberty," from
The Chances, was given as an example of their
lyric poetry. This latter song is prettily set by T.
Cooke, in the Spanish style, with a catagnette ac-
companiment, and went off very trippingly. A recita-
tion from Jane Shore, beautifully acted, was given as a
specimen of the dramatic powers of Rowe. This reci-
tation (the indignant rejection, by Jane Shore, of Glou
tester's advances, and her emphatic calling for blessings
on the head of Hastings, for his defence
of Edward's children against the machinations of the
crooked-back tyrant) was peculiarly appropriate to the
locality, inasmuch as it was probably in the very hall in
which it was then deliver. d that the actual scene took
place, for Crosby-place was the residence of Gloucester,
and in Crosby-hall all his plots against his brother's
children were concocted. This was followed by Claude
Melnotte's description of his course of love, from Bul-
wer's Lady of Lyons, and the first part concluded with
the blind girl's song, " Buy my flowers," from the
"Last Days of Pompeii," which was beautifully given,
and deservedly encored. The second part was devoted
to the musical drama, and the first illustra-
tion was the grand scene, " Softly sighs," from
Der Freischutz, which was given with great
power and effect, and was rapturously applauded.
A brief but succinct narrative of the career of Mozart
was then given, and the story of the composition of his
requiem and of his death was- so beautifully and so
pathetically told as to draw tears from many of the
auditors. The cavatina, " Non piu di fiori, ' from
the Clemenza di Tao, was given as a specimen of this
great master. A digression was then made, giving an
account of the origin of concerts in England, and several
interesting anecdotes were related of the career of the
famous Britton, the small coal-man, the originator of
this species of entertainment. Returning from this
digression, the lyrical drama again became the subject
of consideration, and the cavatina, " Must I woo thee,"
from Pacini's opera of Sappho was given as a specimen
of the modern lyrical drama of Italy. Musically
speaking, this was the gem of the concert—it
was exquisitely given, and to those who know the opera
we need not state that Miss Clara Seyton possesses a
highly cultivated voice of great power and immense
compass, for all these are essentially requisite to do any-
thing like justice to this exceedingly beautiful composi-
tion. A brief notice of the perfection to which the com-
position of catches and glees has been brought in this
country, gave occasion to the introduction of a well-
merited tribute of admiration to the talents of Mr. T.
Cooke as a musician, which was received with the most
rapturous applause. A new romance, entitled " The
Black Knight," composed by Mr. Cooke expressly for
Miss Seyton, was here introduced, and a medley
scene, entitled "A Musical Scamper over Europe,"
'arranged by T. Cooke and written by Albert
Smith, concluded the entertainments. This " mu-
sical scamper " introduces Miss Seyton to us
in quite a new character. We were previously aware
that her histrionic talents were of the highest order, but
we had no idea of her versatility. Nothing can exceed
the fun, the humour, the buoyancy with which this
musical scamper is given, and yet she " ne'er o'ersteps
the modesty of nature;" all is ladylike, and in the very
best taste, but the humour is of the very richest cha-
racter. The imitation of the French street-singer
grinding her organ, and singing " Partant pour La
Lyrie," in the genuine orthodox French nasal twang,
was one of the most humorous things we have seen for
years—the Bavarian broom girl—the Swiss girl, all, all
were excellent. It wasa hit—a most palpablehit—and the
audience felt that it was so—the old hall re-echoed with
the shouts of laughter and applause, and when at the
conclusion of the scamper, as a specimen of that music
which is dear to every English heart, she gave the first
verse of " God save the Queen," the audience rose en
masse and commenced rounds of cheers, which were con-
tinued not only long after the conclusion of the.song, but
long after the fair lecturer had retired from the hall.
The entertainment was exceedingly well attended.