§ Sir R. Wilsonaddressed the Chair on the subject of some most disorderly and irregular conduct which had taken place that morning in a committee up stairs appointed by the House. The House would remember the circumstances under which the present committee on the Newington select Vestry Bill was appointed. It had been the opinion of the last committee on that bill, that the preamble of the bill was not true, in consequence of some of the standing orders of that House not having been complied with. Upon receiving this report, the House was induced to appoint a special committee, to examine whether the standing orders alluded to had been infringed or not. That special committee having reported that the said orders had been sufficiently complied with, the House again appointed a committee on the bill, with power to send for persons, papers, and records. This was the history of the transaction up to that day, when on the assembling of the committee, his hon. friend, the member for the Borough, thought fit to make a proposition to send for the report of the special committee, which motion was carried by a decided majority; but. notwithstanding that, the chairman (Mr. H. Sumner) was the means of preventing the decision of the committee from being carried into effect. Under these circumstances, he (sir R. Wilson) moved an adjournment, in order that they might have the benefit of the Speaker's advice; for their exclusion from sending for the report by which they were authorised to sit, appeared to him to be a gross violation of justice, and of the orders of the House. That question was carried in the negative, and thus they saw themselves deprived of the means of ascertaining the extent of the powers with which they were invested. He 65 was aware that great disorder prevailed in the committee; but he begged to ask who were the cause and origin of it? Those undoubtedly who refused to send for the papers demanded by the committee in the first place, and then opposed a reasonable proposition to refer the question at issue to the Speaker. He was confident the House would bear out the decision of the committee, by ordering the paper in question to be referred to it. For these reasons he should move "That the report made by the committee on the standing orders, with respect to the New-ington select Vestry Bill committee, be referred to the said committee."
§ Mr. Sumnersaid, that in the committee that day a proceeding had been resorted to, which was one of the most extraordinary, and, in its consequences, the most important that could occur, so far as it affected the course of proceeding before a committee up stairs. To the present motion he had not the slightest objection, but in an hour he would call the attention of the House to the other part of the proceedings which had occurred in the committee.
§ The motion was agreed to. After which,
§ Mr. Humesaid, that having attended the committee, of which the hon. member who spoke last was chairman, he felt it necessary shortly to detail the circumstances which took place there. The committee was very fully attended, there being 50 members present; a question was put whether the report of a former committee should be read for the information of the members. The hon. chairman, without waiting for an opinion on either side, opposed the motion; the question being put, the committee proceeded to a division, and a majority was declared to be against the motion. A motion was then made for an adjournment, in order that time might be afforded to ascertain the sense of the House; and on the question being put, three hon. members who stood at the door having made their appearance, the chairman insisted that they should not be allowed to vote. One of the hon. members said, that they had a right to vote, because the question was improperly and irregularly put before strangers had withdrawn, and therefore the chairman had no right to profit by his own irregularity; they therefore desired that the question should be put again. This, the hon. chairman would not listen to; he insisted that he 66 was right, and that the members of the committee were wrong. This decision produced much confusion. The hon. chairman, with that suavity of temper, that mild forbearance—and perfect command over himself, for which he was so remarkable, having insisted that none of the three members should vote, another division took place on the question of adjournment—a noble lord, the member for Westmorland, and his hon. friend (Mr. Bennet) were tellers; the tellers agreed on the number; but when the report of the numbers was handed by the clerk to the chairman, the hon. member threw the paper out of his hand, saying, "I will not read it;" an altercation then arose, during which his hon. friend (Mr. Bennet) very properly refused to report a second time, and the chairman persisted in conduct as little conciliating as he ever saw from any man in any situation. Language on both sides passed which was extremely intemperate; but all that occurred was occasioned by the want of temperance, and the irregular conduct of the hon. chairman. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving, "That the conduct of H. Sumner, esq. member for Surrey, was intemperate and irregular, whilst presiding as chairman of a committee on the Newington Vestry Bill, and that such intemperate and irregular conduct had led to much riot and disorder in the said committee."
Mr. Wynnremarked upon the anomaly of calling upon the House to pass an opinion upon a subject of which they could know nothing. If the motion were entertained, the House would be occupied in hearing contradictory statements which could lead to no satisfactory conclusion.
§ The Speakerpointed out the inconvenient shape of the motion. If the question for the consideration of the House were some abstract point as to the duties of chairman of a committee, under any supposed circumstances, there would be no difficulty in the House entertaining it. But when the question was a charge against an individual for his personal conduct in the discharge of the duties of his situation generally, he did not see how the House could make their way clearly through it. At all events, if a proposition of that nature were to be entertained, it would be necessary to have the Minutes of the committee in question.
§ Sir J. Mackintoshanimadverted upon the conduct of the chairman of the committee, who ought, he thought, to have furnished rather than withheld any information which might be deemed necessary for the understanding of the committee. For the chairman, without any instructions from the committee, to have given notice of a motion of a criminatory nature against any of its members, did certainly appear to him not a little extraordinary. To say the least of it, it was very unusual. It was, in point of discretion, a very ambiguous act, and seemed to show, on the part of the chairman, a remarkable, deviation from prudence. It appeared to have led to great intemperance and irregularity; and though the chairman might have been happily exempt from that impatience and irritability of temper which so unfortunately prevailed in the committee [a laugh], yet still it was imprudent of him, who should have stood impartially between all parties, to have, in the heat of the confusion, given notice of a criminatory proceeding against any of the members of the committee. There was one thing quite clear—that in the present temper of members at all sides, this business could not be investigated as calmly as it ought: he should therefore suggest to the hon. member to withdraw his notice of motion, and let the other party, whose conduct was purely defensive, do the same. The sooner the whole matter were dropped the better.
§ Mr. Sumnersaid, he did not use the term "criminatory" in his notice, which was merely intended to show that the orders of the House had been contravened by members in the committee. He thought the subject was of great importance, and ought to be thoroughly investigated. He was either prepared to proceed with his motion as chairman of the committee, or with his defence in reply to the hon. member opposite.
§ Mr. Denisonagreed in the recommendation.
§ Mr. Sumnercould not consent to flinch from the exposition of the whole transaction, after the language used by hon. gentlemen opposite.
Mr. Bennetsaid, that as he was one of the parties, he could not, if the inquiry were to be proceeded upon at all, consent to one hour's delay. He was most ready to admit, that great heats and animosities 68 had arisen in the committee. He was still ready on Monday to forget them all, and go into the committee to discuss the bill coolly and dispassionately. He assured the House that they would derive little further information as to the cause of difference by postponing the question; for, whenever it came on, the House would find 25 gentlemen on each side flatly contradicting each other, It would be quite as well that the whole matter should be now postponed sine die.
§ The Speakerwas of opinion, that no party would compromise his feelings by a delay that should conduce to mutual conciliation. With reference to the forms to be observed in committees, they ought to correspond in most instances with the forms of the House itself. No member was entitled to vote in either who had not heard the question put, the question was generally put whilst strangers were withdrawing; but it did not follow that because a member came in whilst strangers were withdrawing, he was on that account entitled to vote, for he might not have heard the question. As to the receiving the numbers of the division, there could be no question but that they must be received when the tellers agreed upon them. Suppose an error to be made by the clerk in setting down the numbers; suppose that he transferred the numbers from one side to another; it must appear quite obvious in that case, that the reference must be immediately made to the tellers, and the moment they had decided, the error must be rectified by the clerk. The clerk was not the teller of the committee. He hoped the House would not be displeased at the statement he had made on this subject. He did not know but that he had gone farther than he ought to have done; but he had proceeded from a conviction on his own mind, and he believed on the mind of the House generally, that the most perfect confidence was, in the outset, placed in the judgment of those to whom the proceedings of committees were intrusted; that in the second place, if they had misjudged, the House would lend its assistance to rectify the error, without casting an insinuation on any party; and, thirdly, that if any of the points to which he had adverted had operated, either in part or entirely, to produce this disappointment in the committee, the House would perceive, if they concurred with him in any of those points, the necessity of having a 69 fair and temperate decision. They would concur with him in the propriety of arriving at a temperate judgment on the abstract points, without any personal leaning on one side or the other.
§ Here the matter dropped.