The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-07 00:00:00

Mr. P. SCROPE said, as far as his opinion entitled
him to judge, he believed that motions for re-commit-
tal were never made, unless there were some infor-
mality, which required that the Bill should be re-com-
mitted and re-argued. He thought that if the House
agreed to the motion, they would be casting an un-
merited stigma on the Committee which had already
investigated the matter.
Lord GRA.NVJILLE SOMERSET said he would
pronounce no opinion whatever with respect to the
Committee which had alreadinvestigated the merits
of the Bill. His object in rising was to propose that
the evidence brought before the Committee should be
laid on the table of the House before they were
called upon to pronounce their decision. He,
thought neither party could fairly object to
that proposal. He would take this opportunity
of deprecating the practice of making extensive manu-
script alterations which was now so prevalent. He
thought it was very desirable that that practice should
be discontinued. In addition to the proposal for
having the minutes of the Committee laid on the
table of the House, he should also propose
that the Bill so committed be re-committed, in order

that Members might have an opportunity of looking
at those clauses. If it should appear that those clauses
were of an important character, he trusted that a
strong case would be made out for the Bill ; on the

contrary, if it should appear that they were not of the
slightest importance, then he should be prepared to ex-
press his opinion with regard to the measure. He
thought it his duty, under allthe circumstances, to op-
pose the committal of the Bill, and should, therefore,
move that, the committal be adjourned till this day
week.

Lord WORSLEY hopel the Noble Lord would
not press his motion, as the adjournment would

put the parties to very great expense. He
hoped the House would do him the credit of
believing that he had done his utmost to

give the Bill a fair and candid examination, and the
Committee having come to a conclusion on the Bill,
he did not think it necessary that the House should
put off the committal.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD said he thought the reasons
given by the Noble Lord for deferring the consideration
of this Bill, were good reasons. In the Committee
it had been proved that one party had brought up
clauses containing most important matter, which had
been introduced, the other party not being aware of
them. He should, therefore, vote for the adjournment
moved by the Noble Lord.
Mr. T. B. ESTCOURT said no practice was so
much to be deprecated, so far as the public interest
was concerned, as the practice of bringing up
clauses in a Bill in the manner alluded to. The

Noble Lord had stated that in this case the clauses

were not of very great importance.
Lord AVORSLEY was understood to say that the
clauses referred to another Company.
Mr. ESTCOURT said the practice of the House
in such cases was to reject the Report on the bring-
Mg it up, and to compel the parties to begin
de novo. He thought they ought to take that course
now, but under the peculiar circumstances of the case,
he would yield to the more indulgent course proposed
by the Noble Lord, and adjourn the consideration of it.
Sir R. 11. INGLIS said he differed from his Hon.
Friend and Colleague, who certainly had an advantage
that he had not, namely, local• knowledge, which might
possibly alter his view of the case. He desired to spaak,
not in reference to this peculiar railway, but in reference
to the practice of this House. He could not understand

for what purpose they delegated their functions of
inquiry to a Committee, and afterwards, when
it had made its Report by the hands of the
Chairman, himself a selected Member, that they
should have to re-discuss the matter. If it
were contended that there had been any great

irregularity in the proceedings of the Committee, he
could understand why the motion for re-com-
mittal should be made. It had been said
by an Honourable Gentleman that the :pro-
ceedings were singular, because clauses in manu-
script had - been introduced into the Bill. He
(Sir R. 11. Inglis) would appeal to the youngest
Member of the House, if twenty or thirty clauses were
not frequ6ntly introduced in manuscript into Bills.
His Noble Friend wanted to have the evidence taken
before the Committee printed. Why, it was printed
already; besides, it was never sought to have such
evidence printed, except for the purpose of im-
pugning the decision come to by a Committee.
His lion. Friend, in fact, sought to impugn
the decision of this Committee. The House was
bound to respect the decision of its Committees, and
should not, without sufficient cause, reverse their
decisions. He should, therefore, support the original
proposition, that the Report be now brought up.
Mr. LABOUCHERE thought there was a great
tendency evinced on the part of the House during
the present Session to relax the rules laid down in
such cases as the present. It was a matter of the
greatest consequence to adhere to these rules; so much
so, that it was not a mere prima facie case that
ought to make the House depart from them. The
case for reversing the decision of a Committee must be
very strong indeed that should induce the
House to depart from these rules.—(Hear, hear.)
He thought that no case was made out, and therefore
he would oppose his motion.

Lord Gitt.NVILLE SOMERSET thought, as it
was said that the local Members had a bias in favour
of this measure, the best course was to move the ad-
journment of the debate until the Minutes of the
Committee were laid before the House, so that they
might be able to judge whether the accusations were

true or not. Another reason he had for
moving the adjournment was, that at the very
last moment of the sitting of the Committee,
some important clauses were brought up,
in manuscript. It was necessary- also that the House
should have an opportunity of considering those
clauses. Until they had had those documents before

hem, it would be impossible for the House to discern

the real facts and merits of the case between the ac-
cusations and recriminations of the opposing parties.
Sir It. PEEL fully concurred la the principle laid
down by the Right Hon. Gentle man opposite, as a
departure from fixed rules, must tend to shake the
authority of the House. But not as yet knowing so
much on the subject as he desired to know, he would
abstain from voting at present.
Mr. LAWSON also agreed with the general prin-
ciples laid down by the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Labouchere), still he (Mr. Lawson) felt obliged to
divide the House on his motion.

Lord WORSLEY explained.—(Divide divide.)
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, when
there appeared—
For the motion
For the amendment

110
74

Majority for the motion -36
Mr. LAWSON then withdresw his amendment,
and the Report was brought up :Ind .received.
FLOATING BREAK WATER.
Mr. GALLY KNIGHT presented a petition from
the widow of the late General Sir Samuel Bentham,
praying that his claims to the invention of the floating
breakwater might be investigated.
The petition was ordered to be referred to the Com-
mittee on Taylor's Patent.
MARYLEBONE BILL.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition f(om
the churchwardens and vestryn ten of a parish in
Westminster, against the Mary lobone Bill.
SIEBERT'S NATURALIZATION BILL.

On the motion of Mx. M. PLIT.LIPS, this Bill was
read a second time.

-NATIONAL EDUCATION" (IRELAND).
Lord BERNARD presented a petition against the
system of National Education in Ireland.
COLLEGE OF MA INOTH.

Mr. COLVILLE presented ft petition from Derby
against the grant to
N- Maynooth
A. WS College.
CORL.

Lord WORSLEY present ed a petition from a
farmer in Lincolnshire, againist the Corn Importatim
Bill.

Mr. DIVETT presented It petition to the same
effect.

- Sir G. GREY presented a , petition against any
alteration in the duty on foreign. manufactured gloves.
THE TRUCK S YSTEM.
Mr. FERRAND presentee! a petition from a place
in Glamorganshire, signed 134, 176 inhabitants, com-
plaining of the open violation of the law practised by
some manufacturers. The pegitioners stated that they
had greatly suffered from thq iniquitous practice of