Mr. Goulburnavailed himself of a report being presented of the minutes of evidence taken before the Committee to inquire into bribery at Yarmouth to complain of the appointment of Mr. Stewart Marjoribanks in the place of Mr. Wilbraham on the Committee appointed to inquire into the allegations of bribery made against the freemen of the City of York. Mr. Wilbraham had sat on that Committee, and had heard evidence for nine days. On the tenth day Mr. Stewart Marjoribanks had appeared in his stead. That was, as it seemed to him a departure from the rules and orders of the House, which required some explanation from the noble Lord.
§ Lord John Russellsaid, that in appointing the Committee he had stated that he wished to assimilate its proceedings as nearly as possible to those of an Election Committee. He had therefore recommended, that if any member should be absent for two consecutive days, his absence should be reported to the House, and the House should deal with him as it deemed fit. This had been done in the case of Mr. Wilbraham, and upon that statement being made, Mr. Wilbraham had been relieved from attendance, and Mr. Stewart Marjoribanks had been appointed in his place.
§ Mr. George F. Youngsaid, that as a Member of the York Committee, he could not refrain from expressing the surprise which he in common with every other hon. Member of the Committee felt on finding a new Member added to it, after it had been nine days examining evidence. The Members of that Committee had considered themselves to be acting judicially, and had therefore attended constantly day by day, to hear all the evidence. He had heard with surprise and regret of the addition of a new name to the Committee, as he considered such an addition not to be in accordance with the principles of justice. He made this remark impartially, and without intending any individual application of it, for he had so much respect for the individual added to it, that there was no man with whom he was more happy and proud to act on all occasions.
§ Lord John Russellsaid, Mr. Wilbraham wished to be released from attendance on 505 that Committee, and as he wished to keep the Committee a fair Commitee, he had proposed to replace him by another Gentleman of similar principles. At the same time he must say that if the hon. Member for Tynemouth, or any other Member of the Committee, had informed him that there was any objection on the part of the Committee to this course, he would have moved to discharge some Member of the Committee whose opinions were opposite to those of Mr. Wilbraham, in order to leave the balance of opinions in the Committee the same as it was when the Committee was first appointed.
§ Mr. George F. Youngsaid, that it was impossible for him to intimate any such objection to the noble Lord, for it was not till yesterday that he knew of the appointment of Mr. Stewart Marjoribanks. As he was not a party man, but the pivot member of the Committee, he had been desired to mention it to the House.
§ Mr. Matthias Attwoodsaid, that the noble Lord had not acted with strict impartiality in selecting these Committees, and that these Committees ought to have been appointed by ballot.
§ Lord John Russellhoped, after the attack which the hon. Gentleman had made upon him, that the House would indulge him with a few words in reply. The hon. Member had argued, that, in consequence of the partiality which he had displayed in the appointment of these Committees, it would be much better that in future they should be appointed by ballot. Whether it would be better that they should be so appointed, was a point into which he would not enter at that moment. This, however, he would say, that such a mode of appointment would be much more agreeable to his feelings. His idea originally was, that these Committees should be so chosen; but he had heard objections urged against that mode of appointment, not by any friends or partizans of his own, but by a right hon. Gentleman not then in his place, the right hon. Member for Tamworth. The right hon. Baronet had requested him to name a limited number of Members upon the Committee, instead of appointing them by ballot, by which it might happen that all the Members of one Committee might entertain one set of political opinions, and all the Members of another Committee entertain others. He had complied, and not without reluctance, with that request, and had consented to name the Members of three Committees.
506 He knew not what opinion might be formed of his conduct by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House; but he knew that his Friends on his own side complained that he had appointed the Committee very unfairly as against them. Take for instance this Committee. The persons appointed upon it were Mr. Matthias Attwood, Sir P. Egerton, Mr. C. Villiers, Mr. Wilbraham, Mr. G. F. Young, Mr. Alsager, Mr. Pusey, Mr. Brotherton, and Mr. Grote. In this Committee he could only make out the names of four individuals who voted generally with the Ministers, and with regard to the other five, they generally voted against them. He thought, however, that they were persons who, on such a question, would give a fair and impartial opinion, and would not allow themselves to be biassed by party or political feelings. He was told that Sir P. Egerton and Mr. Alsager declined to attend. He, therefore, replaced them by two Gentlemen on the same side of politics. He nominated the hon. Member for Walsall, at his own request, in the place of one of them. Of that Committee, as he nominated it originally, there were five who always voted with the minority of that House. There was Mr. Matthias Attwood, of him there could be no doubt. To adopt the language of another place, he was a Tory, and something more than a Tory. That was one. Then there was Sir P. Egerton; he too was a Tory and something more than a Tory. That was two. Then there was Mr. Alsager; that was three. Then there was Mr. G. F. Young, a Tory and more than a Tory [Mr. G. F. Young—"No, I beg pardon"]—that was four; and then came Mr. Pusey—that was five. If the House should look at all the divisions of the Session, he would undertake to say, that it would find the names of those five Gentlemen, in every four out of five divisions, against his Ministry. After what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, he should not offer any objection to the plan, if the House thought that in future Committees ought to be appointed by ballot. He was of opinion, that the Gentlemen on his side of the House were more likely to derive advantage from such an arrangement than the Gentlemen on the other side.
§ Mr. George F. Younghoped that he might be permitted to say a few words in his own defence, after the very pointed allusion, or he should rather say attack, 507 which had been made upon so humble an individual as himself by the noble Lord. He was, indeed, surprised that the noble Lord should have come to the astounding conclusion—and one so contrary to the fact—that in every four out of every five divisions he had voted against the noble Lord. He could assure the noble Lord that he was much mistaken on that point, Not even the knowledge, however, that the noble Lord entertained such a belief should induce him to abstain from voting with the noble Lord, except in cases where some paramount obligation of conscience compelled him to vote in a different manner.
Mr. Goulburnthought that the decision of the Yarmouth Election Committee fully justified the confidence which the noble Lord had placed in its members. That Committee and the York Committee were, as he understood, to decide like ordinary Committees, and not like judicial tribunals. He thought that Members who had not heard the witnesses examined ought not to give an opinion upon their evidence. The York Committee had been engaged ten days in taking evidence; and he thought that it was not right that a Member recently added to that Committee should give an opinion upon the evidence which that Committee had collected, but which he himself had not heard.
§ Colonel Percevalsaid, that, before this conversation dropped, he begged to state, that not one Member on his side of the House had been appointed on the Committee to inquire into the nature, extent, and character of Orange Lodges in Ireland.
§ Subject dropped.