HC Deb 11 February 1812 vol 21 cc749-51
Mr. Eden

rose, for the purpose of moving the House that he might be discharged from attending the committee for which he had moved yesterday, on the subject of the expences of the Civil List. Mutilated as the committee was by the way in which it was appointed; deprived of the power of sending for persons, papers, and records; crippled as it was, in every respect, by the limited powers with which it was invested, or rather by the total want of all powers—he could not but conceive it perfectly inadequate to the accomplish- ment of the object he had in view, or, indeed, to the accomplishment of any good or legitimate object whatever. He most, therefore, beg that his attendance on such a committee be dispensed with. The committee might conjecture, but it could not come to any well-founded conclusion on any one topic which might come before them. They might express regret at any expence which might seem too great, but they could neither come to any sound judgment as to the amount of the unnecessary and improper expenditure, nor adopt means for preventing it in future. He was thoroughly persuaded that it would be a waste of his own time in him to attend such a committee; nor did he feel that he could be an efficient member of it.—The question being put and seconded,

Mr. Yorke

was of opinion that after the hon. member had, no further off than yesterday, moved for the appointment of this very committee, and after the House had, on his own suggestion, reposed in him the duty of being a member of that committee, it was rather inconsistent in him now to come to the House, and desire to be discharged from attendance on the committee, merely because the House had not thought proper to grant to the hon. member alt that he asked. The House had refused, and he thought properly so, to grant to this committee greater powers than they had given to a committee on the same subject in 1804. But still when the committee met, if they should be of opinion that they had not due means of information on any particular subject, or even if any individual member of the committee was of that opinion, might not the committee, through their chairman, or any individual member, come to the House and move for such information as they might think wanting, on any branch of the subject referred to them? He did not see why the House ought to distrust the committee they had appointed; nor could he consent that the hon. member who had had a duty devolved on him by the House, at his own desire, should be discharged from that duty because he had not got all he wanted.

Mr. Horner

contended that the charge of inconsistency attempted to be made against his hon. friend was utterly unfounded. The right hon. gentleman said, it was inconsistent in his hon. friend to ask to be discharged of a duty which he had asked to be allowed to perform. Nothing, however, could be so unfounded. His hon. friend had asked for a committee to in quire; the House had appointed a committee to consider, but had denied him a committee to enquire. They had given him a committee utterly unfit for any good purpose. But, whether they were fit for any good purpose or not, it was enough for his hon. friend to say, that this was not the committee he asked. The committee appointed was a committee on nothing but accounts, and yet they were denied the power of sending for a single explanatory paper. If this was so, what inconsistency could be attributed to his hon. friend in requesting that he might be discharged from attending such a commit tee, after the House had denied them those powers, which could alone render their appointment available? He thought his hon. friend had acted a manly and becoming part in asking to be discharged from attending a committee whose labours must be completely inefficacious.

Mr. Bathurst

was of opinion, that any information which might be wanted by the committee might still be obtained by coming to the House, after they were aware of the particular head on which the papers, or other information, would be required. Then, too, it would be in the power of the House to consider, whether the information ought to be asked by vote or by address. The limited powers of the committee at present, did not go to infer a permanent exclusion of evidence, but only put it on the committee, in the first place, to see what could be done by the information afforded them by the crown.

Mr. P. Moore

contended, that his hon. friend had been perfectly consistent.

Mr. Macdonald

asked, would the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer now undertake to consent to address the crown for the papers necessary to enable the committee to come to some judgment on the matter referred to them? At present the committee had nothing to do but to take their chance of any papers falling into their way.

Mr. M. Montague

was afraid that the pre-sent motion might be of dangerous example, and induce the people to believe that that House wished to deny inquiry.

The motion was then put and negatived.