HC Deb 08 February 1819 vol 39 cc350-9
Mr. Calcraft

rose, pursuant to notice, to move that the name of Mr. Brougham be added to the committee appointed to investigate the affairs of the Bank. The extraordinary fitness of his hon. and learned friend for such a committee were not, he believed, disputed by any individual in that House. It was not, therefore, necessary for him to enter into a detail of those abilities which eminently qualified him for a place on that committee. He had been asked by several gentlemen, whether he had any precedent for this proceeding? To this he answered, that he had found a precedent exactly in point. In the year 1781, the marquis of Graham was added to a committee, although it was originally decided that it should only consist of twenty-one members. This took place on the 11th of May, and, in the record of the transaction on the Journals of the House, allusion was made to other precedents. He was not, therefore, making an unprecedented motion. Having stated this to the House, he would not enter into any-invidious remarks, on those gentlemen whose names had been ballotted for, but would content himself with moving, "That Mr. Brougham be added to the said committee."

Lord Castlereagh

said, it would be very invidious to argue on individual members. He was perfectly convinced, that the talents of the hon. and learned gentleman whose name had been mentioned, were every way suited to the examination of the subject to which the attention of the committee was called. It was not on account of that hon. and learned gentleman's want of capability, that he felt it necessary to oppose the motion, but because the grounds on which it was introduced, were in truth, in spirit, and in practice, wholly destructive of the principle on which his majesty government called for a ballot, when a secret committee was about to be formed. The hon. member had mentioned a precedent as to the addition of a name to a committee which had been formed, but he had not mentioned whether it was a committee of secrecy ["it was," said Mr. Calcraft.] But if there was this precedent, there were more recent ones in which the House had refused to make an addition to the members of such committees. In 1797, a motion was made by Mr. Sheridan to add the name of Mr. Fox to the committee on the state of the Bank, which the House thought fit to negative.* In the last parliament too, when, on the absence of a member who had been chosen by the ballot at a considerable distance, it was proposed to withdraw his name, and to substitute that of another member, the House had decided that it would adhere to its own decision, and that as it had a claim upon the services of all its members, the absence of one of them was no reason for excusing him. Without making any personal objection to the individual, he would only say that the best course for parliament to pursue was, to adhere strictly to the old plan, which had been adopted, for a long series of years, in the formation of committees of secrecy.

Mr. Tierney

observed, that the noble lord had said that it would be invidious to state any objection to the nomination of Mr. Brougham. It was, however, something more than invidious, it was extremely difficult. Without saying any thing in disparagement of other gentlemen, he would venture to assert, that no man would deny his hon. and learned friend's qualifications of the researches which the committee would be called on to make. There was not any gentleman in the House there was not any man in the House or in the kingdom, more eminently qualified to assist in the elucidation of any question connected with political economy. The defence which the noble lord had been driven upon was, to say, that when the committee was completed by ballot it should not be varied, and he had adduced as a precedent that when a gentleman was nominated who was 400 miles off, his name was not permitted to be withdrawn * See Parliamentary History, vol. 32 p. 1562. to substitute another. But this was no rule for the present case, nor did it prove any thing but that the ministers would never give way unless they had a decided majority of the House and the country against them. It was said, that in 1797 the House had decided that it would not admit Mr. Fox as a member of the committee. But because the House had been in the wrong then, was it any reason that it should be in the wrong now? If the object was, to obtain the best report, why should the committee consist of 21 rather than 22? They would not add the name to the committee, because it came from that side of the House. Their objection in reality was (what decorum would not allow them to utter), that Mr. Brougham did not sit on their benches. If, indeed, the numbers were so equally balanced, that an addition of one member from that side would endanger the ministerial majority, there might be an excuse for the opposition to the motion. But they had taken care to be abundantly secure on that point. Even with the addition of his hon. and learned friend, the members on the committee, who were in the habit of opposing ministers, would only be eight out of 22. Did any one of the ministers feel that they were in danger—did they think their majority of 14 so slippery? This was a question to which the House should look with great anxiety, for its decision would be taken as an earnest of its intentions; and if the House and the country were polled, no man would be declared by the general voice better fitted for extensive information and persevering research than his hon. and learned friend.

Mr. Stuart Worthy

said, that fully agreeing in all that had been said by the gentlemen opposite him in favour of Mr. Brougham, he could not help saying that it was their fault Mr. Brougham was not a member of that committee. Formerly it had been the practice in ballots to draw up not one but two lists, one from the ministerial the other from the opposition side; on the present occasion about a hundred members balloted, but he observed that not one gentleman came from the opposition side to put in a list. If they had done their duty, if but half the minority which they had mustered had put in lists containing the name of Mr. Brougham, there would have been a very good chance that that gentleman would have formed one of the committee; for it was known that many members had al- tered the ministerial list. After this he thought the House would not be persuaded to add another member to a committee already formed.

Mr. Calcraft

said, that the hon. member for Yorkshire had taken upon him to lecture that side of the House; in the last parliament that hon. member was in the habit of giving good advice to the ministers. He for one, should always be glad to listen to the hon. gentleman's admonitions; but in the present instance he had misstated the facts and mistaken the inferences to be drawn from them. The number of the members who balloted was 200, and of these 175 had put in the treasury lists unaltered. But this was not all, for it was well known that there was a corps de reserve available for the purposes of the minister. It had been well observed by the right hon. the member for Liverpool, that it was peculiarly desirable to have this committee composed of all the talents in the House most competent to judge of the important subject referred to it, and as the talents of his hon. and learned friend, to whom the motion referred, were quite unquestionable, he lamented the absence of that right hon. gentleman upon this occasion, because, if present, he must calculate in consistency upon that right hon. gentleman's support of the motion.

Mr. Alderman Waithman

said, that if the object of gentlemen were a full and fair inquiry, he could not see why they should oppose the present motion. He did not see why they should object to the name of Mr. Brougham, a gentleman possessing talents of the highest order, and knowledge of great extent. Whatever gentlemen might say in that House, by whatever pretext they might labour to get rid of such a man, the country at large would say, that this committee of inquiry was but a committee to suppress real inquiry. He said, he would ever oppose the appointment of a committee by ballot, because he considered it an improper mode of selecting a committee; it had indeed been made a joke of; it had afforded infinite amusement to the other side of the House, but he considered it a grave and important matter, and gentlemen who treated it with levity, who called it a joke, showed very little respect for public opinion. He could not think that the House would perform its duty, even if precedent were against the present motion, if they excluded Mr. Brougham from the committee. Precedent should not be attended to where precedent might be mischievous. It might happen, that a particular individual, on a particular occasion, might be better qualified to act—might have more capability and information—than all the persons on the committee put together; it might happen that such a man might, by chance, or by design be excluded: in such a case, he would ask, was the House, was the country to be shut out from all the information such an individual could afford on a mere matter of punctilio? But as far as precedents went, it was stated that they were in favour of the nomination. For his part, he did not conceive that the mode adopted was the way to promote a full and complete inquiry: he for one, had no expectation from the investigation. Though he had not the honour of a seat in the House before, yet he had not been inattentive to its proceedings. He had heard enough—the country had heard enough of secret committees—they had heard enough of the old jokes of the balloting system—they had heard enough of the green bag committees, to hope for any useful result. The fair intention of the balloting system was, he said, to have the members of committees appointed un biassed and impartial. Time, however, had perverted it, and experience showed that it was a system that should not be upheld, but ought, on every constitutional and honest principle, to be immediately abandoned. For himself, he strongly deprecated the rejection of the hon. and learned member. He spoke from feeling, and the sudden but strong impulse of feeling, convinced that the country would be universally dissatisfied if the hon. and learned member alluded to was not placed upon this committee.

Mr. Wynn

observed, that with respect to the system of ballot, he differed from the worthy alderman, as well as from other members; for it appeared to him quite indifferent whether a committee were appointed by ballot or by nomination, because the opinion of the majority must have the same influence in either case, with this consideration, however, in favour of the ballot, that gentlemen had an opportunity, through that system, of expressing their real sentiment, without of- fending against prejudice or partiality. He would most decidedly object to the system by ballot, if, as some gentlemen summed to suppose, it served to fetter the discretion of the House; but no such fettering could be seriously apprehended, because, whatever lists might be circulated, every member had still an option to vote for any gentleman whose name might be inserted, or to nominate another in his stead. But with respect to the motion before the House, it was, he must say, very incorrectly resisted upon the ground of precedent; for so far from its being contrary to precedent to add any member to a balloted committee, the cases were numerous where members were added to committees after their appointment. It frequently occurred so where members were out of parliament at the time of the appointment of the committee, and whose knowledge and labours were most desirable; many instances could be stated where members were thus appointed. This had been the case in the year 1715, when three members were subsequently appointed on such a committee. In 1773, Mr. Jenkinson, Mr. Langley, and Mr. Hopkins, were appointed in a similar way. In 1781, lord Graham had in like manner been introduced. There was, therefore, no question as to the propriety of this proposition on the score of precedent. The only question then was, whether the appointment of the hon. and learned gentleman to whom the motion referred would conduce to the object of the committee? In considering this question, it was clear that there could be no difference of opinion as to that hon. and learned gentleman's knowledge of political economy, while his assiduity and diligence were proverbial; and, therefore, thinking that such a member would be a most useful acquisition to the committee, he felt it his duty to vote for the motion.

Mr. Canning

said, that as his observations on a former evening had been alluded to in his absence, which allusion, by-the-by, he could not help thinking rather inconsistent with the usual courtesy of the House, he felt it necessary to say a word or two upon the motion. What he had stated upon the subject of the system of ballot, in comparison with the proposal of nomination, was this, that the former afforded gentlemen a full opportunity of expressing their opinions, without stating their grounds of objection or preference towards any individual. It was upon this ground, distinctly, that he preferred the system of ballot. Now with respect to the motion before the House, he would abstain from saying any thing about the hon. and learned gentleman referred to, save only this, that he fully concurred in all that had been urged in the way of panegyric upon the great talents and attainments of that hon. and learned gentleman. But still he objected to the proposition for adding that hon. and learned gentleman to the committee alluded to, for he felt that such addition would be contrary to precedent. He believed there was no instance upon record of such addition to a committee already formed, unless with regard to some member, who might not have been in the House at the time of its formation, or whose peculiar qualifications might not have become known to the House until after the ballot. But neither was the case in the present instance, for the hon. and learned gentleman was a member, and perfectly well known to the House at the time the ballot took place. Yet the hon. and learned gentleman was not among the number chosen by that ballot, and therefore he could see no adequate reason for this proposal to proceed to a second election, upon the grounds stated by the worthy alderman and others. Upon those grounds he felt himself called upon to oppose the proposition for opening the committee, being fully persuaded, that if the addition now required were acceded to, it would not be the only one pressed upon the consideration of the House.

Mr. Wynn

rose to say a few words, rendered, in his mind, necessary from the speech of the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down. The precedents he had alluded to before were precedents exactly in point, not precedents that fell under the description of those relied oh by the right hon. member. He would mention the case of lord Finch and the chancellor of the exchequer, who, in 1715, were added to a committee. In 1773 the names of Mr. Jenkinson (the late lord Liverpool), Mr. Langley, and Mr. Hopkinson, were added to a committee of that House. In 1781 the name of lord Graham was added to a committee of that House. He would only say, that these gentlemen were all members of the House at the time the committees had been originally appointed, and this, he trusted, would be a sufficient answer to the ground of objection relied on by the right hon. gentleman.

Mr. Barham

said, he was particularly desirous that the arguments of the hon. member for Yorkshire should not pass without comment. The gentlemen on his side of the House had refrained from preparing any lists of members for that committee, or even putting any lists into the glasses, expressly with a view of showing to the country that they would not lend their aid in deceiving their representatives by so despicable a juggle as that of a ballot, which was, in effect, nothing less than a nomination by ministers. In the course of his long experience in parliament, he had known many lists to be prepared by the opposition, but never had he seen an instance in which any of them had been successful, or of the least use. The custom he therefore thought might as well be dropped altogether, and in this respect he thought the taunt of the hon. member for Yorkshire was the less fair, because the object of the gentlemen on the opposition benches had been to undeceive the public, and to place the subject before their eyes in its proper light. Of one thing he was convinced, that there was not a man in the country who did not think the hon. and learned member one of the very fittest persons to act on that committee.

Mr. Martin

, of Galway, said, he had heard gentlemen on the opposition side of the House dwell very largely on the talents and the information of the hon. and learned member; but those qualities, in his mind, were not all that was necessary; nor would they induce him to accede to the present motion. He could conceive a gentleman at the bar, learned as a lawyer, but whom his majesty would not be advised to appoint to any judicial situation. He could conceive a case where a man might be very highly skilled in divinity, yet the ministers of his majesty would not be advised to make him a bishop. Government and the House had other considerations in view besides the appointment of the hon. and learned member; and though he would not deny him the praise, on the score of information and of talents, he would still vote against him. Precedents had been mentioned: he considered the matter should rather be decided by the discretion of the House; he felt that he had a right to use his discretion, and he would vote against the motion. Much had been said about the management of government in making out lists, but he verily believed that if government had been ever so anxious, it would have been out of their power to procure the nomination of the hon. and learned gentleman on the committee. He was not ashamed to say that government could not have induced him to vote for that appointment [a laugh, and cries of question!]

Lord Morpeth

spoke in favour of the motion. He said, that in 1797, he had voted for the appointment of Mr. Fox to a similar committee, although at the time opposed to that great man's political opinions; and, in the present case, he would, were he on the other side of the House, feel the propriety of voting for the appointment of the hon. and learned gentleman referred to in the motion, from a conviction of that hon. and learned gentleman's peculiar aptitude for the situation, distinguished as he was for the highest abilities and attainments.

Mr. Marryat

expressed his entire concurrence in all that had been said with regard to the great ability of the hon. and learned gentleman alluded to. Still he must say, that the question referred to this committee being not merely theoretical, but practical, he could not acquiesce in the proposition, that it was desirable to add the hon. and learned gentleman to that committee, as he did not conceive that gentleman to have had any practical experience. In his opinion, indeed, there were already too many theoretical, and too few practical men upon the committee.

Mr. D. W. Harvey

said, that an hon. gentleman had thought fit to say, that a lawyer without principle, and a divine without piety, were not fit to be appointed on a committee of the House. As to the hon. and learned gentleman, he was a lawyer, not only of great learning and ability, but in other respects pre-eminently qualified to investigate the subject for which the committee had beer appointed. It had been said, that gentlemen of the opposition had not done their duty; if the charge were true, surely they ought now to remedy the defect as soon as possible. It struck every man as extraordinary, that a gentleman pre-eminent for talents and industry, and singularly skilled in political economy, should not have been among the first on such a committee.

The question being put, "That Mr. Brougham be added to the committee," the House divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 175. Majority against the motion. 42. The result of the division was received by the opposition with a loud cheer.

List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J. Hughes, W. L.
Allan, J. H. Hume, Jos.
Althorp, viscount Hutchinson, hon. C.
Anson, sir George Kennedy, T. F.
Aubrey, sir J. Lamb, hon. W.
Broadhurst, John Latouche, John
Beaumont, T. W. Lemon, sir Wm.
Buxton, T. F. Longman, Geo.
Blair, J. H. Legh, Thos.
Barham, J. F. Leake. Wm.
Baring, sir T. Lyster, Rich.
Barnett, James Macleod, Roderick
Becher, W. W. Macdonald, James
Bernal, Ralph Mackintosh, sir J.
Bennet, hon. H. G. Madocks, W. A.
Benyon, Benj. Maitland, J. B.
Birch, Jos. Martin, John
Browne, Dom. Methuen, Paul
Byng, George Maxwell, John
Burroughs, sir W. Milbank, Mark
Calthorpe, hon. F. Mills, George
Calvert, C. Monck, sir C.
Carter, John Moore, Peter
Cavendish, lord G. Morpeth, viscount
Clifford, capt. Newman, R. W.
Clifton, visc. Neville, hon. R.
Coffin, sir J. North, Dudley
Colburne, N. W. R. Newport, sir John
Colclough, Cæsar Onslow, Arthur
Concannon, L. O'Callaghan James
Crompton, Sam. Ord, Wm.
Davies, T. H. Phillimore, Dr.
De Crespigny, sir W. Protheroe, E.
Denman, Thos. Palmer, C. F.
Denison, W. Jos. Pares, Thos.
Dickinson, Wm. Parnell, sir H.
Douglas, hon. F. S. Peirse, H.
Duncannon, visct. Philips, George
Dundas, hon. L. Philips, Geo. jun.
Dundas, hon. G. Phillips, C. March
Dundas, Thos. Price, Robert
Davenport, D. Power, Richard
Ebrington, visct. Ramsden, J. C.
Edwards, John Ridley, sir M. W.
Ellice, Ed. Robarts, A.
Euston, earl of Robarts, W. T.
Finlay, K. Russell, lord W.
Forbes, C. Russell, lord G. W.
Fazakerly, Nic. Russell, lord John
Fergusson, sir R. C. Russell, R. G.
Fitzgerald, lord W. Sefton, earl of
Fleming, John Smith, Wm.
Gaskell, Benj. Smith, Geo.
Gordon, Robt. Smith, Sam.
Graham, J. R. G. Smyth, J. H.
Graham, Sandford Stuart, lord James
Grosvenor, Thos. Tavistock, marquis
Grenfell, Pascoe Taylor, M. A.
Griffith, J. W. Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Guise, sir W. Waithman, alderman
Hamilton, lord A. Webb, Ed.
Harvey. D. W. Wharton, John
Heathcote, sir G. Whitbread, Wm.
Howard, hon. W. Wilkins, W.
Howorth, H. Wilson, Sir Robt
Wood, alderman TELLERS.
Wynn, C. W. Calcraft, John
Wodehouse, Ed. Lambton, J. G.