undertake to read all those queries; but | alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, which the impropriety of some of them deserved bore their name, had not heen printed by particular attention. One was, "Have order of the board of supervision, nor under their direction or sanction. So far as he knew, the paper had been printed by desire of certain parishes, the overseers of which thought that some such form was necessary in order to test accurately the claims of paupers to relief. By the statute, parties applying for relief were bound to answer some questions, although in the meantime and pending inquiries they were entitled to relief. If it were refused to them, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock had been informed, they could obtain redress by going to the local judge, the sheriff of the county. It would be therefore seen that the board of supervision had nothing to do with the matter. But it was important that the parishes should obtain information regarding parties applying: they would otherwise be subjected to great imposition. In the first place, it was necessary they should know that the party applying was entitled to obtain it; which he certainly would not be, if he had property. Again, it was necessary to ascertain whether or not another parish was liable to support the applicant. It was for many reasons important that searching questions should be put to applicants for relief; but if any had to complain of its being refused to them, for not answering those questions, they had their redress immediately, in the manner he had before stated.

you any right to or expectation of inheriting or succeeding in any manner to any property? and if so state the full particulars of such property, and your right, title, or expectation to it. Another was, "State how long you have resided in this parish, also the names and addresses of the landlords from whom you have rented houses. Produce also your receipts for rent and receipts for parish rates, &c., paid by you whilst living in the parish.' Another was, State to what congregation you belonged, or what place of worship you attended." The last was, "Are you willing to subscribe the following declaration, that you will give up your right to whatever property you inherit, until compensation be made to the parish for relief afforded you." The paper on which those queries were printed bore the name of the printers to the board of supervision of the poor. Now the law provided that every destitute person was entitled to relief on proof of destitution; yet he had been given to understand that relief had actually been refused to destitute persons, because they refused to answer all the queries in that paper. He denied that any right existed to compel or to call upon paupers to give replies to them, and he hoped that they had not been issued under the sanction of the Lord Advocate or the Home Secretary: if they had not been so sanctioned, he trusted there would be no objection to giving publicity to the fact that paupers were not bound to answer them all before they could become entitled to relief; and he should therefore conclude by asking the Lord Advocate of Scotland whether a printed paper, entitled "application for relief," have been printed and circulated in Scotland with the knowledge and sanction of the board of supervision of the poor; if so, whether it have been with the sanction of the Lord Advocate or Secretary of State for the Home Department; and whether it have been with their knowledge and sanction, that the applicants for relief are required to answer the queries contained in that form of application before their claim to relief is considered, or that claim allowed?

The LORD ADVOCATE replied that the Messrs. Murray, the printers to the board of supervision of the poor in Scotland, were also printers for their own behoof, and the paper containing the queries

METROPOLITAN BUILDINGS BILL.

MR. HAWES, pursuant to the notice he had given on Thursday, begged to ask the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department what course the Government intended to pursue with regard to the Metropolitan Buildings Bill, and when the right hon. Baronet meant to introduce the amended Bill?

SIR J. GRAHAM replied that the Bill of last Session had been submitted to Mr. Hargreave, who recommended that it should be cut up into four parts, which should be brought in as separate Bills. That had accordingly been done, and two of those Bills were in course of preparation, and would be ready for presentation to the House in the early part of next month. The object of the first would be the regulation of buildings. The second related to the official referee and the general machinery for carrying the law into effect. The third related to the property

MR. W. SMITH O'BRIEN.

The Order of the Day for taking into consideration the subject matter of the letter of W. Smith O'Brien, Esq., to Mr. Speaker. The entries on the Votes of April 27, April 28, and April 30, (see Debates, ante on those days) were read.

adjoining buildings about to be erected; | materials do not constitute the Committee and the fourth to nuisances. Of these the without the Order of the House. Let us two first would be ready next month. The see what is to form the Committee accordothers involved questions of exceeding dif- ing to the Standing Orders. The four ficulty, and to the time at which they first contain all that is important for the would be ready for presentation he could consideration of this matter. The first not pledge himself. It would perhaps be requires the appointment of a Committee satisfactory to state that there was a power of forty-two Members; the second enables for the revision of fees under the existing the forty-two to divide themselves into Sublaw, and that it was the intention of Go- Committees, but does not interfere farther: vernment to reduce those fees. it does not say who shall appoint a Chairman, for that, I believe, is what the Committee itself decides. The next order is that a Committee shall be appointed at the commencement of every Session to be called the Select Committee on the Standing Orders. Then comes the material order the fourth-that a Committee be appointed at the commencement of every MR. O'CONNELL: My intention is to Session, consisting of the Chairman of the state the facts of the case, and then to different Committees named, of whom three submit one or two Motions resulting from shall form a quorum, to be denominated what I consider the law as founded upon the Committee of Selection. If such a the facts. I mean to move that the Order Committee have been appointed, I give up of the 27th April be discharged, because the case at once. I shall sit down without it was made under misinformation and mis- saying another word. But I assert disstatement of the hon. Member for the Uni- tinctly that no such Committee has been versity of Oxford (Mr. Estcourt). Of appointed. No question has ever been course, I do not impute designed misstate- brought before the House as to the existment to the hon. Member, for he is inca- ence of such a Committee; in short, there pable of stating anything that he does not is a total vacancy, and want of appointment believe: but he has, in my humble opinion, of any Committee of Selection. This grossly misinformed the House, and thereby brings the matter to a narrow compass. obtained an order which otherwise never Was there such a Committee? The letter would have been agreed to. He is the of the Gentlemen who acts as Clerk of the Chairman of what is called the Committee House seems to me decisive that there has of Selection, but the legal existence of been no such appointment; and searching which I beg leave to deny. He purported the Votes I have not been able to trace it. to be Chairman, acted as such, and in that The directions of the Standing Order are capacity, and so terming himself, entered mandatory, but they have been utterly into a correspondence with the hon. Mem- disobeyed. It has been suggested, as I ber for Limerick. The hon. Gentleman hear, that the materials for such a Comdetailed the circumstances connected with mittee being in existence, it becomes a that correspondence to induce the House Committee of itself. I deny it. It would to order Mr. Smith O'Brien to attend a be depriving every Member of the House particular Committee, and he obtained that of the only opportunity he could take of order. If I am able to show that that stating his objections to any of the Chairorder was made under the misapprehension men. The House, be it remembered, has of a principal fact, the House ought to not the appointment of the Chairmen of amend its proceedings, and direct the dis- the Committees, of whom the Committee charge of the hon. Member for Limerick. of Selection consists; therefore the only There cannot be a shadow of doubt that opportunity a Member can have of objectthe House, on the allegation of the existing is when the Committee of Selection is ence of the Committee of Selection, and of the refusal of Mr. Smith O'Brien to comply with the request of the Chairman, directed him to attend, and on his disobedience committed him; but I deny that there was any such Committee of Selection. I admit that there were materials for it, but the

appointed. But need I argue the question? The House has peremptorily declared what shall be done. Do I find any practice against the course I maintain to be regular? On the contrary, I find in the Journals this entry, on the 4th of February, 1845:— The House moved that the Standing

Order No. 4 might be read." Why was
not that done in 1846 which was done
in 1845? I am not bound to prove that
this order was absolutely necessary, in
consequence of the ignorance of the House,
and that an opportunity for inquiry
should be given; it is enough for me that
I find this in the Standing Orders. See
the situation in which Mr. Smith O'Brien
is placed, and by whom. No Committee
of Selection was appointed; but a set of
Gentlemen, highly respectable, vote them-
selves to be a Committee of Selection, and
apply to Mr. Smith O'Brien, who takes
no notice in obedience to their application.
They come to the House, and state that
they are a Committee of Selection, duly
appointed. They misinform the House.
Surely I am not to be told that Mr. Smith
O'Brien is to suffer from his ignorance of
the facts-when ignorance is the only ex-
cuse for bringing the matter before the
House. He did not perhaps discover the
objection to the Committee at the time,
but he has discovered it now. I need not
enter into an examination of the particular
points, for I submit that I have the law
expressly with me, and it is in violation of
the law that the hon. Member for Limerick
has been committed. It would be improper
longer to trespass upon the House until I
hear something to which I may reply, and
I shall therefore move in the first place
that the Order of the 27th of April be dis-
charged; and, secondly, that Mr. Smith
O'Brien be discharged. If I succeed in
the first Motion, the second will follow of
course; but if I fail in the first, I shall beg
leave still to press the second, that he be
discharged under all the circumstances of
the case.
The Motion formally put was
as follows:

but I beg to state, on the contrary, that we pursued the course advisedly, and because we considered it expedient and consistent with the Orders of the House. The hon. and learned Member has truly stated that, by the Standing Orders, certain Committees were appointed to execute certain duties. The first is the Committee of forty-two Members, denominated the Select Committee of Petitions for Private Bills. Another Committee consists of seven Members, and of certain other Gentlemen, which is called the Standing Orders Committee. There is a third Committee, which consists, not of any Members to be chosen by the House, but of Members fixed in their offices by the selection of the Committees. This is called the Committee of Selection. To that Committee the hon. and learned Member takes exception. He contends that, unless there is in every Session an appointment of that Committee, it cannot execute the duties confided to it. Upon that point I am at issue with him. I conceive that the Standing Orders form the law which regulates the House of Commons. It is well known and acknowledged by everybody, that the Standing Orders are not a piece of annual legislation. They are not annually confirmed by the House; but they form a code of laws published by the House, which continue in force to govern the House until they are repealed or altered. It is some years since the Committee of Selection was constituted. In the first instance, it was not constituted, as now, by the Standing Orders of the House; but for five, or six, or seven years, it has been constituted as now. I contend that, when a Standing Order has been made, and appoints a Committee, whether it be one of the Committees of Petitions for Private Bills, the Standing Orders Committee, or the Committee of Selection, that Committee continues until it is dissolved by MR. ESTCOURT: I believe it is ne- some alteration of the Standing Order. cessary for me, without any apology to What are technically called Sessional Orthe House, to endeavour to show the grounds ders are of a different character. They do on which I think that the Committee of not continue unless they are made StandSelection was duly appointed, and has dis-ing Orders; and the House has constantly charged its duties as Committee of Selection during the whole of the present Session. I conceive that there has been nothing irregular in the course of proceeding; but that all has been strictly conformable to the law and usage of Parliament. I should take blame to myself if I were to stand up and defend what has been done, merely because it has been done, and because I wish to establish our regularity;

"That the Order made upon the 27th of April last, that William Smith O'Brien, Esq., do attend the said Committee to-morrow be discharged."

taken the distinction between Sessional and Standing Orders. A Standing Order, I contend, governs the House as long as it remains a Standing Order. The Committee of Selection was appointed by the Standing Orders: the Committee on Petitions was appointed by the Standing Orders; and the Standing Order Committee was appointed in the same way. I am confirmed in this position by what the

to the House for the confirmation of his
appointment. I therefore conceive it is
not to be disputed that the Standing Order
appoints the Committee. The hon. and
learned Member has arraigned the pro-
priety of our conduct, and says that our
impropriety has brought the hon. Member
for Limerick into his present situation. I
must deny it. It was necessary for me to
advert to what passed in 1845; and it was
in 1845 that the hon. Member refused to
attend the Committee, and wrote his rea-
sons for refusal to me as Chairman of the
Committee of Selection. To that letter he
recently appealed, and upon the arguments
there used he relied. I may be allowed to
remind the House that the Committee has
been repeatedly recognised in the course
of the present Session; on hundreds of
occasions references of business have been
made to it. I do not apprehend that it is
necessary for me to say more.
I was pre-
pared to expect that the hon. and learned
Member would have made some observa-
tions on the letter of the hon. Member for
Limerick; for it appears to me that his
case should be rested upon anything rather
than informality; and whatever may be the
opinion of the hon. and learned Member, I
can state distinctly that the subject has
been well considered-that whatever was
done was done advisedly. It was the
opinion of my Colleagues, as well as of
myself, that it would not merely be a

hon. and learned Gentleman has had recourse to. On searching the Journals he has seen that the Committee on Petitions for Private Bills consists of forty-two Members: and when the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Strutt) comes dowa for the appointment of the Committee, he does not submit a Motion-he does not give notice that he will on a certain day move for its appointment, but he directs that the Standing Order shall be read, and he then nominates the Committee; and that nomi- | nation is entered on the Journals and on the Votes. That is his mode of supplying what is left deficient by the Standing Orders. The same thing occurs to myself: when the Standing Orders Committee is appointed, I do not come down and make a Motion-I do not give notice that it will be appointed, but I require that the Standing Order be read, and then I nominate the Committee. Now, as to the Committee of Selection, it is undoubtedly true, that at the commencement of the last Session, there was an entry in the Journals that the Committee of Selection be appointed; but I contend that it was an irregularity; it was done at a time when, as I find from my own memoranda, I was unable from indisposition to attend the House. By whom the irregularity was committed, I know not; but I contend that it is an irregularity. This is my opinion; and on conferring with the highest authority on these points, I am confirmed in it. The Com-work of supererogation, but of impropriety, mittee was appointed by the Standing Order. In the present Session, I acted upon my view of the subject; and all the Committees were appointed by the Standing Orders; and I had nothing to do but to come down and nominate the Members. The nomination of the Members is not to MR. WARBURTON thought they should be by the House. The Committee of Se- argue this question quite irrespective of lection consists of the Chairman of the Se- the consequence it might have on the case lect Committee on Standing Orders, and of Mr. S. O'Brien. The plain question the Chairman of the Committees and Sub- was this, whether the Committee of SelecCommittees on Petitions for Private Bills, tion had been appointed or not? The three of whom make a quorum. No ques- hon. Member for Oxford had stated that tion is put; and there is nothing more to the House had in various instances recogbe said on the subject. The Standing nized the existence of the Committee durOrders are imperative, not only in the ing the present Session: that was true; Session in which they are passed, but in but "a blot is not a blot till it is hit." It every Session until they are repealed. I was not so clear that the House would beg to say, also, that supposing my place have been perfectly satisfied with the Comas Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee of Selection if it was believed to mittee were now vacant, it would not be supplied by any Order of the House, but my Colleagues of the Committee would select some Member from among themselves to be Chairman; and he would not come

to have asked the House to interfere at all in the construction of the Committee of Selection.

I trust, therefore, that the House will support its Committee in the view it has taken, and negative the Motion before it.

sit unsupported by any vote of that House. If the construction which the hon. Member for Oxfordshire contended for was the true one, that no appointment at the commencement of the Session was necessary, then