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

RAILWAY GROUP Q.

Mr. SOTHERON reported from the Select Commit•
tee on the Railway Bills comprised under the letter Q.,
that the Committee met at tv..elve o'clock, and that Mr.
B. Escott was not present, and did not attend tho
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.
Lie could, however, satisfy the House that he had
not only done his dnty, 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 he
could not attend, inasmuch as ho was en-
gaged in-- - two other Committees, and that
attendance on two Committees was full as much as he
could attend to.—(Hear, 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. He (Mr. acott) 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. He wrote a
second letter to Mr. Creed, to this effect—after making
that secoul statement he mentioned the matter to his
lion. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford.
who took a prominent part in the Committee of Selection,
and told him it was utterly impossible for him to attend.
Ile was in hopes that this exilanat'on was sufficient.
It was quite impossible that he could do duty upon both
these Committees.

Mr. ESCOTT was not sorry that his Hon. Friend
had brought this matter before the House, because it
was of considerable importance with reference to the
carrying out of that plan which they adopted,
for the purpose of forming a Congress to investigate
railway projects. His Hon. Friend had most accurately
stated all that had passed on the occasion. When the
letter of his Hon. Friend was laid before the Com-
mittee of selection, they found that what he had
stated was that he had served upon two Com-
mittees, and that he could not discharge both duties.
He apprehended that the Nouse would consider whether
the being appointed upon a public Committee exempted
a Member of that House from his Parliameßtary duties.
If his lion. Friend, however, had stated, on a similar
occasion, the facts which now appeared, considerable
difficulty would have been avoided. Ile was very glad
that he had an opportunity of stating to the House
that if an Hon. Hember felt reason for considering that
he could not serve, it would be attendee with great con-
venience if he instantly informed the Committee of his
inability to act. The Committee of Selection did not
consider the explanations of the Hon. Member sufficient
excuse, and, therefore, did not excuse him. The same
circumstance occurred in several other cases, and they
were dealt by in the same way. However, the Com-
mittee of Selection would, of course, adopt whatever mea-
sure the House might think proper to adopt in reference
to this rule.

Mr. LABOUCHERE said it was quite obvious that
the fact of an Hon. Member serving on a public Com-
mittee could not excuse him serving on a Committee of
this House.

' Mr. HUME differed altogether from the Hon. Gen-
' tleman. The duties of the Committees were twofold.
One of those duties was of national importance, the
other related to private interests. He could not under •
stand why Committees on measures of great public
and national importance should be neglected for
the business of private Committees. Attendance on
public Committees was not compulsory. It was com-
pulsory on Committees on private Bills. He himself was
at the head of a Committee
was
a s
u bj
appointed to investigate a
subject of great national
importance. Several
Members who were appointed on that Committee had
been asked if they would attend, they had all replied that
they should be most happy to attend, but that they were
on Committees on private Bills, which they were com-
pelled to attend. Now there was the Committee on
Prisons
subject of
had h
national
een
importance
appointed en that Committee had been since drafted
;
several
111 abe r s who
off into private Committees. Now, he thought the
public business ought not to be neglected in this
manner. Members should be compelled to attend
on public Committees in the same manner as
they were compelled to attend on private Committees,
and Members who were placed on public Committees
ought not to be compelled to servo on any others. His
Honourable Friend had stated that there were up wards
of one hundred Members serving on Railway Com-
mittees, but there were five hundred Members
still to be chosen from. Ile did not know whether or
not there was a scarcity of members, but if such was
the case they ought to have a call of the House, and
compel the attendance of ,Members.—(Hear.) There
were many Members absent. upwards of 100, as far
as he knew, without any reason. Their attendance
should be enforced, in order to compel them to
attend on Parliamentary Committees.
Str J. TYRRELL had great satisfaction in seeing a
large number of Irish Members present. They ought
to call upon the gentlemen of Ireland to take their fair
share of business.
Lord J. RUSSELL could not agree with the Hon.
Member for Montrose that the fact of a Member being
appointed to a public Committee was an excuse for his
not attending a railway Comrninteo upon which the at-
tendance was compulsory; because everybody knew that
a member upon a public Committee might leave London
altogether, and go to reside in the country without being
missed. But he agreed with the Hon. Member for Mon-
trose that as the House had adopted a compulsory course,
they ought to require the attendance of Members who kept
away without leave of absence, or any justification.—
(Hear, hear.) It was obvious that the absence of those
Members rendered the duties more onerous to others.
—(Cries of "Hear, hear.") He thought, therefore, that
the House ought to be obliged to the Hon. Member
for Montrose for calling attention to the subject.—(Hear,
hear)—and he hoped that the House by a call or other-
wise, would enforce the attention of the Members who
absent without excuse.
Lord GEORGE SOMERSET said that as he was the
person who proposed the compulsory resolution, the
House might expect him to say something upon this
question. It certainly was not intended that the resolu-
tion should be enforced without any modification.—
But he thought that the attendance of his Hon. Friend
the Member for Manchester, when the public Committee
Ras of that constraining character which should excuse
him from attending to the Railway Committee. which he
(Lord G. Somerset) considered of as much importance
to the public as the business of Committees called public.
Dr. BOWRING thought as the House had come to a
resolution on the subject of Railway Committees that
regulation ought to be enforced. The questions for the
consideration of the Committee were of the utmost im-
portance, and it wits quite impossible they could be
attended to if Hon. Members were not compelled to attend.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY said it would be impos-
sible to admit the excuse of the Hon. Member for Win-
chester without neutralising the effect of the very regu-
lation passed by the House.
Mr. P. M. STEWART said he had been appointed
Chairman on a Railway Committee while he was serving
on two public Committees. He had applied to the Hon.
Baronet, the Chairman of the Cornmitte of Selection,
to be relieved from the Railway Committee, but
he was informed that no locus standi before the Com-
mittee of selection in making such an application. Ile
was therefore obliged to leave the comparative repose of
the two Committees to consider ten Bills and listen
to twenty lawyers. If the House should come to a de-
cision in favour of the Hon. Member opposite, he (Mr.
Stewart), hoped it would be made retrotpective.
Captain BERKLEY said the Members who thought
proper to attend the Repeal Association had never been
summoned on any Committee.
Mr. SOTHEtiON thought the Hon. Member for
Winchester had better be relieved from further attend-
ance on this Committee.—(Cries of " No, no.")
Mr. F. SHAW said ho had served upon a Committee
at great inconvenience to himself. He understood that
ab, ut forty Committees would be appointed, so that a
constant attendance of about 200 Members would be
absolutely requisite.
Sir GEORGE GREY said there ought to be some
motion on the subject, He would suggest to the Noble
Lord that the Honourable Member be directed to attend
the Committee to-morrow.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET said that after the
general expression of the House he thought no motion
on the subject would be neeessery.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH wished to know whether,
if those Irish Members did not attend, the Sergeant-at-
Arms would not be sent over to Ireland to compel the

I attendance of such. Members.—(Hear.) He agreed en-
tirely with his Hon: Friend opposite that some under-
standing must be come to on this matter, and he could
not help expressing his surprise that none of the names
of those gentlemen had yet appeared on the list.—(llear.)
Ile regretted that the Right Honourable Gentleman
(the Recorder of Dublin) should have made such a
friendly attack.—(Laughter.) Yes, a friendly attack on
the Hon. Member for the University of Oxford. He
seemed to say, "I will excuse you for non-attendance,
and put you to serve upon another." If a preference
was extended to one, it ought to be extended to all.
Mr. M. MILNES wished to ask the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman what would take place if an Hon. Member re-
fused to attend the summons ?

Mr. HUME said, that if this were made a compul-
sory matter, he hoped that a call of the House would
take place immediately, so that every Hon. Member
who could not furnish a sufficient apology might be
compelled to attend.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said he had put a question to
the Noble Lord, and he hoped he would answer him.

Lord G. SOMERSET said be was not aware that,
the Noble Lord had put a question to him. He
conceived that any Member who bad been selected
by the Committee of Selection to serve on a Railway
Committee would, if he had not obeyed that call be
committed, by order of the House, to the en tody
of the Sergeant at-Arms. The case had not yet arisen,
and the House expressed no opinion upon it. He
hoped, however, when the case did arrise, that the House
would nut allow their resolntions, emanating from
a Committee, to be considered as so much waste paper.
He was afraid if the attendance of Members was not
forced, that they would not attend at all.—(Hear.)
Lord CASTLEREAGH said tbat the Noble Lord
bad not answered his question. He wished to ask him
distinctly whether, in the event of certain Members
from Ireland not attending, they would be compelled to
do so.