HC Deb 23 February 1860 vol 156 cc1572-3

MR. T. DUNCOMBE moved that the Select Committee on the Corrupt Practices Prevention Bill (1854) do consist of sixteen Members, and that Mr. H. Berkeley be added to the Committee.

MR. E. P. BOUVERIE

doubted whether the practice of adding to the number of a Select Committee, after it had been named, was desirable. The number of Members who could be required to serve on Committee swas not too large. He objected to the nomination from no disrespect to the hon. Member for Bristol, who had done so much to promote reform in the electoral system.

Motion negatived.

MR. H. BERKELEY

said, that in order to entitle himself to speak, he would move the adjournment of the House. As far as he was personally concerned he should certainly have asked the hon. Member for Finsbury not to press his Motion to a division on the Committee. Whether he was named on the Committee or not, his hon. Friend had done some service by suggesting that every section of Reformers should be represented on the Committee. He had been twenty-one years in the House, and during that time had taken an active part in endeavouring to repress various kinds of corruption in the electoral system; and he therefore felt he had some claim to be placed on the Committee. His hon. Friend had, therefore, some reason for proposing the Motion, though he (Mr. Berkeley) did not wish him to press it.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

MR. T. DUNCOMBE

said, he had not anticipated that there would have been any objection to the Motion. The House had already appointed a Committee, and why should they object to name another Member for it? Out of the fifteen Members of the Committee thirteen were lawyers. He did not mean to say that lawyers were not as well qualified as other Members to inquire into Corrupt Practices at Elections. There were, however, other Members as well acquainted with such practices, and as well entitled to be on the Committee. If those thirteen lawyers would not make confusion worse confounded, he should be surprised. The House had decided that the hon. Member for Bristol should not be one of the Committee, although it was well known that he had a certain specific for corrupt practices, which he believed would be more efficacious than any which the lawyers were entitled to suggest. He believed that the refusal of the House to put the hon. Member for Bristol on the Committee, would occasion much disappointment to the public.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.