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

RAILWAY BILLS.

Earl DALHOCSlFTlresentecfreicrts on the Corn-
wall and Devon and other railways, which were ordered
to lie on the table.
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS' REFORM.
Lord CAMPBELL said ho begged to ask the ques-
tion of which he had given notice, as to when her
Majesty's Government proposed to bring in the Biil fur
a reformation of the ecclesiastical courts? A rumour
had gone abroad that one of her Majesty's Ministers in
another place had stated that it was not the intention of
the Government to bring in any measure this selsion
upon the subject of ecclesiastical courts reform. He
wished to ascertain what were the facts, for he thought
the matter was well worthy of attention. When the
Ecclesiastical Commission had been appointed the judges
had sat upon it, and they were all unanimous in the
agreement of some measure being absolutely requisite'
Another Commission had been appointed, on which
had sat. Their opinion was the same. There had been
w
Committees of both Houses of Parliament, itch una-
nimously agreed in the same conclusion, Over
these Committees Sir James Graham had pre.ided,
he believed that there was a full impression of the ne-
cessity of such a measnre as that to which he had al-
luded. He had since made an inquiry of that Right
II sTn
h.
eGDenutkl Gentleman.
fmoanl.v
LLLD.TGTON—But you don't know
what his answer is.
Lord CAMPBELL-- That was true ; but he was
al armed at what was rumoured to have
taken place 11
another place. No mention hal been made cede-.
of
siastical reform since its introduction into the Quc
ei'
speech in 1843, and he therefore wished to ask when
her Majesty's Ministers intended to introduce the Ecch.--
siastical Reform Bill ?

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that if the Nob
Lord would have put a short question he would have
given a short answer. It certainly was not his intention
to bring in any Bill on this subject this session.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH said that it was not the
custom of that House to make speeches upon asking
questions, utiles: the speeches were to be concluded by
motions.

The Earl of MINTO said that it certainly had not
been the custom of that House formerly to adopt the
practice assumed by his Noble Friend on the present
occasion, and to which the Noble Lord opposite ob-
jected. But he begged to assure the Noble Lord that
it had now become a habit in that House, though
.he
must acknowledge that the habit did grow up during
the Noble Lord's absence. It was extremely disorderly
and inconvenient, and the sooner it was put an end to
the better ; yet still, as it was the habit of the House,
he thought his Noble Friend (Lord Campbell) was jus-
tified in the mode of proceeding ho had adopted.
Lord CAMPBELL said that ever since he had had
the honour of a seat in that House, the usual mode of
proceeding had been to state the facts which were ne-
ces*ary to render any question or notice of motion intel-
ligible. Such was the custom in the other House of
Parliament, and he begged to refresh the memory of his
Noble Friend as to several occasions on which this prac-
tice had been observed in their Lordships' House. He
was unwilling to subject their Lordships' House to the
opprobrium of neglecting so important a business.
The Duke of WELLINGTON begged to speak to
order. The usual order of that House was to make no
speeches upon a question, without concluding it with a
motion. That when a motion was intended to be made
it was the courtesy of that House to give notice of that
motion. Having explained what was the order, and
what was the courtesy of that House, he must protest
against the Noble Lord entering so fully into a subject
of this kind, and violating both.
Lord CAMPBELL would consider the best mode of
formally bringing forward the question on an early day.
([Tear, from the Duke of Wellington.)
The House then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 4.
RAILWAYS.

Mr. GISBORNE agreed with the statements and rea-
soning of the Honourable Member opposite, but unfor-
tunately he would not be able to give him his vote,
as he agreed with the proposition of the Noble Lord.
He agreed with the Noble Lord that, in consenting to
these arrangements, he would give up all the advantages
of local knowledge. The evidence which would be
brought before the Committee, under the present ar-
rangement, would not furnish the best information on
local subjects; for those who could give the best and truest
iuformation would be excluded. No doubt but those
witnesses who would be produced ly the contending
parties would be well informed ;. but they would be
prejudiced in favour of one or other of the contending
parties. It was a well established fact, and known by
experience, that whenever professional men were en-
gaged, be they lawyers or doctors, surveyors, engineers,
or chemists, the most contradictory evidence was given
by the most respectable witnesses.—(Laughter.) When
upon these committees, his mind was at times perfectly
bewildered by those masses of irreconcilable and oppo-
site statements ; and might have continued so, if some
Hon. Member who possessed some local information had
not said a few words that made every thing straight
and plain. He would, however, give a reluctant support
to the resolutions of the Noble Lord.
Captain EGERTON said that he entirely agreed
with the Hon. Member as to the great disadvantages
which Committees would labour under in not possess-
ing this local information. He trusted the house would,
to a certain extent, reconsider these resolutions.
Mr. EWART said it was perfectly competent for a
Member of thatllouse, having a local interest in matters
referred to a Select Committee, to appear before the
Committee to give evidence as a witness.—(Hear.)
Mr. SHAW said this course had been pursued with
very great advantage in the Committee of last year.
Mr. BANKES dill not understand that it was any part
of the proposed resolutions not to summon Members of
Parliament as witnesses on certain lines; and if doing
so did not meet the question now before the house, if
the resolutions were to be passed in that undefined form,
the result would be endless contention and misunder-
standing; and for this reason, that besides the interests
of the different classes mentioned as intended to be re-
presented, there was yet another class whose interests
were much more important than any of the others, he
meant the interests of the public.—(Bear, hear.) And
if the public interests were not to be represented by
Members of Parliament, he would like to know who
could give local information to the Committees on the
subject ?—(Hear, hear.) He made those observations
in order that the Ilouse should be careful not to give its
sanction to any Bills which were adverse to the public
interests.

Mr. GREENE said it would be quite impossible for
the House to dispose of those Bills, if they were to be
called upon to attend and listen to every local interest
sought to be represented. If the principle of the repre-
sentation of local interests was to be admitted, the House
ought not to have reduced the number of local Members,
which they had done some years ago. He thought it
would be inflicting an injustice if they were to adopt
such a principle. They ought to admit no local Mem-
bers. They sat either judicially or representatively.
If they sat judicially, the smaller the number of Mem-
bers, the better. They would be enabled to procure all
the information they might require much better from the
examination of witnesses than they could from the
attendance of local Members. If the Committees sat
representatively, the House had committed a gross in-
justice in reducing the number of the Members. He
could not see the smallest utility in having the attend-
ance of Members representing local interests.
Mr. C. WOOD was sorry to hear from the Noble
Lord and the Hon. Member who had just sat down that
they considered that it would be impracticable to devise
a plan for securing the attendance on these Committees
of Members possessing local knowledge. He had here-
tofore seen great benefit derived from the attendance on
railway Bill Committees of Members possessing local
knowledge. No doubt inconvenience might arise in some
cases. In the case of a long line, for instance, such as
that from London to York, he admitted that it might be
difficult to secure the attendance of Members possessed
of local knowledge, and, at the same time, to provide
for the fair representation of all the local interests, but
that case was an exception. The Board of Trade had
reported on three groups of railway s—one in Kent—
another is Yorkshire—and another in Northumberland.
Now, as to these three groups, no difficulty could
wise. He did not see why they should not have the ad-
vantage of the attendance of Members possessed of local
knowledge upon those Committees, and there could be
no difficulty in selecting them, so as to secure a fair re-
presentation of local interests. He did not see why the
Committee of Selection should not select six Members
possessed of local knowledge from the Speaker's list,
and five impartial Members; they would thus obtain the
advantages of both plans. He did not think that eleven
Members were too great to attend on a Railway Cora-
mitte. They did not sit judicially on Railway Commit-
tees. No one had been a greater advocate than himself
for the reduction of the numbers of a Committee which
sat judicially. He had always advocated the reduction,
of the number of Members on Election Committees, as
increasing the responsibility of the Members, for he was
convinced that when Committees sat judicially, the
smaller the number of Members the better the tribunal.
The investigation with which the Committee would be
entrusted was of the most extensive nature. For him-
self, he should feel great difficulty in deciding on the
merits of the whole of the South Devon, or of the Kent.
lines, being totally without the statistical or local know-
ledge that would be required.
Mr. M. MILNES said it was of the highest import-
ance that a due deference should be felt by the public for
the decisions of the Committees of that Muse. The
choice laid between the Committee proposed by the Go-
vernment or one composed of ie local Members. The
great object of the Governmenwould be to select five
Gentlemen, who should be entirely ignorant of all parts
of the subject.—(Laughter.) On the other hand, there
might be five Gentlemen who were the best informed on
the question, but then they would be most liable
to the influence of local prejudices. On striking a fair
balance of these difficulties, he thought, to secure an im-
partial decision, their best course was to pass the reso-
lution proposed by the Government.

Sir JOHN EASTIIOPE said, that formerly he had
been in a railway Committee that sat sixty days ; and in
consequence of the system which existed, they were ob-
liged, under the pressure of interests which they could
not resent, often to vote against their own conscience
(Laughter.) lle was more ashamed of the fact than
the avowal ; but no consideration—nothing, in fact, but
compulsion, would induce him to place himself in the
same situation again. In that case, local interest was
found to be destructive of public right.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought that the opinion of the
Hon. Member who had just spoken was entitled to
great weight. Ile had always felt that nothing would
ever satisfy the public but constituting a judicial tri-
bunal guided by no interested or pecuniary motives.
He congratulated the House in having this resolution
submitted for their sanction ; and if they were obliged
to divide, lie hoped there would be an overwhelming
majority in its favour. The scheme proposed by the
resolution was the only method practicable and con-
sistent with justice.

PAItiNGTON, in reference to what had fallen
from the Hon. Member for Chester, said, that he bad
served on a Committee last year, and he never saw the
interests of the landowners better attended to.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the.
gallery was cleared for a division, but none took place,
the amendment having been negatived without a division.
Mr. ENTWISLE said he disregarded those phrases
which had been launched out so abundantly against
railway shareholders and speculators, who were en-
gaged in honest commercial enterprise. The Hon.
Member was proceeding to address the House upon n
former resolution, when
The SPEAKER interfered, and said, such a course
was irregular.
The HoN. MENDER then went on to say, that the House
should clearly explain its opinion as to the propriety of
Members serving on Committees who were interested
in local speculationF. The House should clearly state
whether Members who were in any degree interested in
railways should be Members of a Select Committee or
not ; and if its opinion were in the affirmative, it was
only fair that they should be protected from reproach.
In his opinion, the bare fact of a Member having an_ in-
terest in a line of railway should not disentitle tom
from sitting on a Committee.
Mr. BERNAL did not think the wording of the reso.
lution sufficiently clear and explicit, because it was im-
possible for any one to say, according to ttle wording of
the resolution, when a Member was entitled to sit on
these Committees or when he was not.
Lord GRAN VILLE SOMERSET defended the word.
int; of the resolution.
Mr. HUME thought no individual should sit on a
Committee where his private or personal interest was