The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-06 00:00:00

CUSTOMS DUTIES BILL.

The Earl of DALHOUSIE then moved the committal of
the Customs Duties Bill.

The Duke of RICHMOND moved, as an amendment, that
the Bill be committed that day six months.
The LORD CHANCELLOR hi`ving put the question, de-
clared that the contents had it.

The Bill then went through Committee, and upon the
schedules being put,
The Duke of RICHMOND again urged upon the House
the necessity of protecting the agricultural interest.
The Earl of ILIALHOUSIE denied that the interests of
the agriculturists had either been injured or forgotten in the
present measure.
After some observations from the Earl of WiNcurtssA and
the Earl of DALHOUSIE, the Bill passed through Committee.
The House then resumed, and the report was brought up,
When the Duke of -RICHMOND proposed that bark and
other articles of a similar kind be left out of the schedule.
On this motion the Bill was recommitted, when,
After a few words from Lord STANLEY, the motion was
negatived.
The report was then brought up, and the schedule was
agreed to.
The House resumed, the report was brought up, and the
Bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow. The
House then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 5.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
On the motion of Mr. HODGSON HINDE, the New-
castle upon Tyne Port Bill was read a third time.
IRISH GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.
Mr. FRENCH rose to move that the Irish Great
Western Railway (Dublin and Galway) Bill be per-
mitted to proceed. He was glad to see the Chairman of
the Standing Orders Committee in his place, for he
wished to show.that there were peculiar circumstances
in this case which might make it expedient to set aside
in its favour the general rule. The Hon. Member then
read from a document the opinion of the Government
landed proprietors on this line, that the railway should
be proceeded with.
Mr. ESTCOURT opposed the motion.
Mr. REDINGTON thought that, important as it
might be that the standing orders should be observed,
there were occasions, and this was one of them, on which
they ought to be dispensed with.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN opposed the motion. If the
standing orders were worth anything they ought parti-
cularly to be enforced in cases like the present.
Mr. STRUTT said. that the present case was one
especially in which the standing orders ought not to be
dispensed with. The errors were quite evident upon the
face of the drawings and documents, and required no ex-
amination of witnesses to expose them. He opposed the
motion.

Lord PALMERSTON hoped that if the standing
orders were to be dispensed with on this occasion, a
similar indulgence would be extended to the Muflinger,
Dublin, Longford, and Sligo Railway Bill.—(Hear, and
a laugh.) He did not think that any irregularity
would be found in the management of that Bill.—(Hear.)
But he hoped that, if it should so happen, the standing
orders would be waived as well as in the present case.
The Cashel and other lines to the south were looked
upon as so important, that questions of form were not
Permitted to obstruct the passing of those Bills. The
Dublin and Longford line was of importance equally
great, particularly as it was to have branches to the im-
portant seaport town of Galway on the one side, and
Sligo on the other. On these grounds, then, he did
hope that if the present proposition should be carried,
the House would act in the same way towartis the Dub.
lin and Longford line, that bad been reported against—
(Hear, hear) —for the formation of lines of railway in
Ireland would be attended by the best possible results,
in giving employment to a large labouring population.
Mr. WARBURTON said, that if the House indulged
in such acts as those—namely, rescinding votes which
would have a prospective effect—they might as well also
let their votes have a retrospective effect—(Laughter)—
in order that all Bills reported not to have complied with
the standing orders, might be approved of, and thus
throw the standing orders overboard altogether.
Mr. HAMILTON would not be willing to do anything
contrary to the standing orders ; but still he did think
that with respect to railway property in Ireland, the
House ought to pause before they rejected such Bills, for
railways in Ireland might be looked upon as national
works.
Sir T. FREMANTLE said that, owing to the public
position in which he was placed in reference to Ireland,
he felt an anxious interest in that country, and was ex-
tremely desirous that railway projects should be carried
on there. Being a member of the Standing Orders Com-
mittee, he would not be unwilling to advise the House
to reverse those orders—(Hear' hear)—but when it was
remembered that the capital had been subscribed, and
every other step taken by which to expedite the Irish
lines, it would be well to consider the Bills seriously
I before they. were rejected.—(Hear, hear.) He had no
particular interest in any railway project, but he would
say it would be well if the Committee had both those
Bills before it, and decide whether they would pass
either Bill, or neither of them, or both.—(Rear.)
Sir G. GREY hoped the Standing Orders Committee

would be spared the investigation of this subject, and the
parties the expense of their doing so. He thought the
standing orders ought to be relaxed with respect to
Ireland.

Lord G. SOMERSET said that if his Right Hon.
Friend would propose that in future all railways in Ire-
land should be exempt from the ordeal of the Standing
Orders Committee, he would give the subject his con-
sideration.
Sir R. INGLIS never saw a case in which
compliance with the motion of his Right Hon. Friend
ought to be more resisted throughout than the
present. The statements of his Hon. Friend the Mem-
ber for Kendal had placed the subject on a proper
outing and completely decided the question. If they
agreed to adopt the present proposition they would be
called upon to do so by every railway in the kingdom.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—
For the Motion. 97
Against~
Majonty....
The announcement of the division was received with
loud cheering by the Opposition.
The South Eastern Railway Extensions were read a
seeend time.
Mr. 13USWEILD presented a petition from Bradford
in favour of the Lee and Thirsk Railway.
The Southwark and Vauxhall Water Works Bill was
read a third time.
The Royal Naval School Bill, and the Warwick Rec-
tory Bill, were read a third time.
Mr. MORRISON wished to know.on what principle
the fares and rates on railways were regulated by the
Committees ?
Sir G. GREY said that there was a very great diffi-
culty in fixing any principle on which the fares and rates
of railways should be determined, but the Committee of
which he had the honour to be Chairman, had endea-
voured to ascertain the existing rates on several lines of
railway, and had founded their decisi,ms thereon. He
would suggest, before passing the Bill before the use,
that it would be desirable that this point should be
decided.

foUmPthge
RAILWAY E_
*Select Commit-
Mr. SOTIIERON reportedG
from
under the letter Q,
the Railway Bills comprised ,
Lee on twelve o clock, and that Mr.
that the Committee met at
and .
did not attend the
B. Escott was not present,
Committee.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said, if it was the pleasure of the
House, he would state to them the reasons why
he did not attend the Committee to day. He had
in his possession some correspondence which, it
he had been informed of the intention of the Hon.
Gentleman, he would have brought to the House.
He couli, however, satisfy the House that he had
not only done his duty, but had taken that course,
which alone was consistent with his duty as a Member
of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Creed, an officer
belonging to the Committee of Selection, wrote to him,
asking him why he did not attend the Committee in
question, and he wrote back to say that be
could not attend, inasmuch as he was en-
gaged in two other Committees, and that
attendance on two Committees was full as much as he
could manage.—(llear, and laughter.) He received
another letter from the same gentleman, saying that his
letter had been 'laid before the Committee of Selection,
and that they did not consider it sufficient excuse for his
non-attendance. lie (Mr. Escott) did not wish
to be excused from doing any duty, but he thought he
was himself the best judge as to whether he could dis-
charge those duties in a proper manner. lie wrote a
second letter to Mr. Creed, to this effect. After making
that iedond statement he mentioned the matter to he,
Hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford,
. who took a prougaent pact in the Committee of Selection.