§ MR. BRIGHTmoved, "That in the matter of the Peterborough Election Petitions Committee, the parties have leave to appear by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents."
§ MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, he was Chairman of the Committee, and he was anxious to know if the Committee would have any control as to the mode in which counsel should be heard. He apprehended if this Motion were passed, they would appear in the ordinary way. He thought they ought to be restricted to reasonable limits, and not to be allowed to take technical objections, otherwise the proceedings would be so protracted that they might not be able to report this Session.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, if the Motion were carried, counsel must be heard in the ordinary way.
§ MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, he would appeal to the hon. Member for Manchester to leave the matter in the hands of the Committee, who would be quite ready to call in counsel if the necessity arose. At all events he trusted the hon. Member would postpone his Motion until he ascertained what course the Committee proposed to take. He (Mr. S. Wortley) felt quite satisfied they would make such arrangements as would be satisfactory to all parties.
§ MR. BRIGHTsaid, he was afraid he should not be able to consent to the proposition. He moved for the Committee, following the precedent of the Stamford case, and he had been driven from that to 760 the precedent of the Derby case, and it was on the Derby case he was now going. What he was now moving was appended in the Derby case, and he did not see why he should postpone the Motion.
§ MR. BAINESsaid, as Chairman of the Committee of Selection, he wished to state the principle on which the Committee in this case had been selected, and he was anxious to do so in consequence of some expressions which he understood had fallen from the hon. Member for Manchester. The hon. Member for Manchester said it was the understanding of the House that he was to be a Member of the Committee. Now he (Mr. Baines) was not aware of any understanding that any particular Member was to be added to the Committee. When the matter came before the General Committee they looked at the terms of the reference, and found that they were directed to name a Chairman and six Members for the purpose of investigating the allegations of the Peter; borough petitions; and they thought they should best fulfil their duty by constituting the Committee as fairly and impartially, and as little open to exception, as possible. They found that the precedents in such cases differed. No doubt in the Stamford case the Committee of Selection put on the Committee the hon. Member by whom the complaint had been in the first instance presented to the House; but by way of counterbalancing him it was thought necessary to put another hon. Member on the Committee, to represent as it were the opposite party. Now that was a principle to which he very much objected. It was carrying on the old system of nominees, which had been abandoned by common consent. Then they looked at the other precedent, which in point of time, and he believed in nearly all its circumstances, was most similar to the present case, the Derby case, which occurred in the present Session. That was an inquiry into time allegations in a petition from the borough of Derby brought forward by the present Attorney General, and it was determined by the House that a Select Committee should be nominated by the General Committee of Selection, who did not appoint anybody who had previous impressions on the subject. They thought it best to name Gentlemen who were entirely uninfluenced by their previous impressions, and who would take their impressions from the evidence, and 761 the evidence alone. In this case, as the hon. Member for Manchester appeared in the House as the prosecutor, they thought it best not to appoint him; but, as in the Derby case, they appointed hon. Members who would take their impressions entirely from the evidence. He would therefore appeal to the House whether they had not made a fair selection.
§ MR. BRIGHTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman spoke as if he (Mr. Bright) found fault with the Committee of Selection, or with the Gentlemen they had nominated. That was not the case. Only the course he had been recommended to take was, to adopt the precedent of the Stamford case, in which Sir William Page Wood, who had presented the petition, and who stood in the same relation to the Marquess of Exeter as he (Mr. Bright) did to Earl Fitzwilliam, was a Member of the Committee. However he did not want another word to be said. He was quite satisfied with the Committee, and he hoped it would conduct the inquiry in the best and most impartial manner.
§ Motion agreed to.