NOMINATION OF COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 16 February 1857)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he would now move that the names of Mr. Weguelin and Mr. Blackburn be added to the Committee.

§ MR. CAYLEY
said, he thought it was somewhat objectionable that the Governor of the Bank of England, who would be one of the principal witnesses as to the operation of the Bank Charter Act, should be placed on the Committee. He (Mr. Cayley) wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would object to the Motion of which he had given notice, that the Committee should consist of twenty-six Members?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that he had on a previous 731 occasion expressed his readiness to increase the number of the Committee to twenty-two, and with that object he had submitted the names of Mr. Weguelin and Mr. Blackburn to the House. He did not see the force of the objection urged by the hon. Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire against the nomination of the Governor of the Bank of England, and for his own part he thought the fitness of that Gentleman to serve on the Committee would be generally recognised. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) must also remind the hon. Member that it was by no means unusual to examine Members of Committees as witnesses, and he would therefore feel it his duty to press his Motion. With regard to the suggested increase in the number of the Committee, if it was the wish of the House that such an increase should take place, he would make no objection.

§ MR. GROGAN
said, he should now move that the Committee do consist of Twenty-three Members, and that Mr. Vance be added to the Committee.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he thought that before the House agreed to the Motion of the hon. Member for the city of Dublin, they ought to come to some Resolution as to whether the Committee ought to be increased.

§ MR. CAYLEY
said, that he believed it would have been far better, considering its intricate nature, to have referred the subject to a smaller Committee, but as there was so little difference now whether the Committee should consist of twenty-three or twenty-six Members, he would state the grounds why he proposed the latter number. As the Committee then stood, there were fifteen Members taken from the Ministerial side of the House, and only six from the Opposition, and as the present was no party question, he was at a loss to know on what grounds such a selection had been made, or whether it had arisen accidentally or intentionally. On the former occasion, the Committee was selected as seven from the Government side of the House to four from the Opposition. As on a former occasion, he again warned the Government against this unfair selection, and he begged to inform the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the opinion the right hon. Gentleman 732 had expressed on the Act of 1844, was not the opinion of the country, nor did he (Mr. Cayley) think it was of the Members of that House. He considered it unfair that a question of this kind should be prejudged by naming a Committee that was two to one.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he felt he should be doing an injury to the feelings of the hon. Member for the city of Dublin (Mr. Vance) if he again resisted the Motion that he be added to the Committee. He would therefore ask the House to agree to the following arrangement—that the Committee consist of Twenty-four instead of Twenty-two Members, and that Mr. Vance and Mr. Laing be added to the Committee.

§ MR. CAYLEY
said, he should oppose the Motion, on the ground that the Committee was, as he had previously stated, unfairly constituted. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not sufficient confidence in his own proposition to press it to a division he could not have a very good opinion of its merits.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he was of opinion that there were too many Members upon the Committee.

§ MR. W. EWART
said, he also thought a small Committee would be better than a large one, and that all Committees ought to be appointed by a Committee of Selection, or some authority which should be responsible for their nomination.

§ MR. J. L. RICARDO
said, he doubted whether the Committee would arrive at a conclusion on the question during the present Session from its being composed of so large a number. He thought that the hon. Member for the North Riding (Mr. Cayley) had not put the question fairly when he compared the relative numbers of the Committee from the different sides of the House. He believed that although so large a number was taken from the Ministerial side of the House, it would be found that although generally of one opinion they differed from each other in many particulars with reference to the question under consideration. If the Committee were increased he did not see the slightest prospect of their deliberations being brought to a termination in time to allow of the House legislating on it during the present Session.