§ Lord John Russell moved, that the Select Committee appointed to examine into the matters alleged in this gentleman's petition be empowered to send for persons, papers, and records.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that he might, with great propriety, move that the order which the House had made on a former evening On this subject should now be rescinded; and the ground upon which he should be justified, in doing so was, that there had been no notice of the motion which the noble lord had carried. He had, at first, resolved to do so, but he had since abandoned his intention; and he would tell the House why: it was, because the case was one in which an individual complained of having suffered great hardship. If it had been of a different description he should certainly have acted upon his original resolution. The noble lord communicated to him, and to another gentleman on his side of the House, his intention of presenting a petition; but he had given no intimation whatever that he purposed to follow it up by a motion; and certainly he could not have imagined the noble lord intended to make such a motion as that which had been proposed. Knowing, as he did, the noble lord's usual courtesy in all matters which he brought before the House, he should not have believed it if he had been told that any such proceeding would have been adopted by him. He did not now rise to oppose the motion; but as the noble lord, in forming a committee of sixteen, had taken only five members from the ministerial side of the House, the other eleven being selected from the opposite benches, he should object to the addition of any more names to the committee.
Colonel Daviessaid, he was sure his noble friend had no intention of taking the House by surprise. He had not requested him to attend, nor, as he believed, many other gentlemen who were usually in the habit of acting with him.
§ Lord Miltonsaid, he supposed the reason of the right hon. gentleman's complaint was, that no Treasury notes had been issued on the occasion.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, that so far from there having been any intention on the part of his noble friend to take the House by surprise, he had himself requested his noble friend to put off the motion. He bad no reason for doing so, but that he 1112 thought any other occasion would be just as favourable to its success as that on which it was made. He could not sufficiently express his surprise at the intention which the right hon. gentleman avowed. If he had carried it into execution, what, he asked, would be the inference of the country? The most ardent reformer that ever lived would not wish that such a picture should be held up to the country of the state of the representation—that because the benches on the right hon. gentleman's side of the House were not so well filled as usual, any motion which happened to be made at that time was afterwards to be rescinded. Would it be openly insisted, that if by an accident—a rare one, it must be confessed—they, on that side of the House, succeeded in carrying a question, it was afterwards to be decided over again, at an opportunity which ministers might think more favourable? They should remember, that the same thing might, if the example were once set, be practised on that side of the House. He did not see why this question differed from any other, or why it required any more notice than the corn question, which had been so lately proposed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, his right hon. friend had been misunderstood. Undoubtedly, the rules of the House were not made for the convenience of one side or the other; and he believed that, if the course now complained of were adopted on that side of the House, gentlemen opposite would complain of it bitterly, and with great justice. He must confess he was surprised that the noble lord should have made this motion without notice. He was himself on his way to the House on the evening on which it had been made, but hearing that there was nothing before the House but petitions, he was ashamed to say he turned back.
Mr. Calcraftprotested he had neither had, nor heard of, any such notice as that about which the right hon. gentleman had spoken; and yet he had voted on the former evening with his noble friend; and did not regret that he had done so. As to the objections that had been taken to the noble lord's mode of proceeding in. this case, the whole of the matter was, that the right hon. gentleman was very sore. He did not like to be beaten; and defeat was yet too new a visitation for him to be callous to it. For his own part, he could not agree with those who thought that a formal notice ought always to be 1113 given, preparatory to bringing forward a motion. Experience showed, that it was only by sudden movements that members on his side of the House could defeat their much more powerful antagonists. Whenever these formal notices were given, and they had what was technically called a "field-day" of discussion, they were sure to be overwhelmed. However in-convenient the course complained of might be, he could not consent to relinquish, upon all occasions, the exercise of that wholesome privilege, which every member had the power to exercise, of propounding motions without notice.
§ Mr. Broughamwas inclined to think that the motion of his noble friend, on a former evening, had been carried against ministers, not quite so much by surprise as some hon. members seemed to imagine. The debate on that occasion was undoubtedly not a very short one. There had been a great deal of discussion upon it. If he recollected rightly, an hon. and learned friend, from Doctors' Commons (Dr. Phillimore) addressed the House at considerable length, and no doubt in a manner very profitable to those whom he addressed; but the length of that address was certainly not the less profitable to the division which subsequently took place. For during his learned friend's exercitation, a great many members came down, who, not being scared like the Chancellor of the Exchequer at hearing that the debate was only about a petition, did not turn back, but took their places in time to vote with his majesty's ministers. And, by a singular coincidence it happened, that during precisely the same period, and while his learned friend was stating his view of the question, a great many gentlemen on his (Mr. B.'s) side of the House left it. The vote was not, therefore, altogether so mere a matter of accident as it had been described to be. The fact was, that a very general impression, in the case of Mr. Buckingham, had gone abroad—and a very strong one too— that, somehow or other, by the conduct of the East India Company, that gentle-man had been very hardly used.
§ Dr. Phillimoresaid, he thought he had a right to complain that the noble lord had not given any notice that he intended to move for a select committee. He had certainly stated, that he would bring the petition under the consideration of the House, but he did not even hint that he would follow up that proceeding with a 1114 motion for a select committee. And he for one must say, that on hearing the speech which the noble lord delivered on the petition being presented, he had no idea that the noble lord meant to call for a select committee. He might have been imprudent in the speech he had made, but he must say, that in addressing the House on that occasion, he was not actuated by any consideration connected with the division which afterwards took place. It arose entirely from his decided opinion that the whole of this proceeding did not originate in any feeling of compassion for Mr. Buckingham, but from a desire to carry on indirectly, an attack upon the memory of the late Mr. Adam — an individual, who, in his conscientious opinion, he believed to be one of the most valuable servants the Company had had for a long time. Unfortunately for the Company, death had closed the career of that distinguished individual. He was not there to defend himself; and he thought it but fair to say thus much in justification of that gentleman's character.
§ Mr. Broughamsaid, that if the motion in question had been introduced for the purpose of levelling an attack against the lamented individual whose name had been mentioned, or if he thought that by possibility it could lead to such an attack, he would have been the last man to have given it his support.
§ Dr. Phillimoresaid, he undoubtedly never thought that the noble lord or his learned friend would make themselves parties to such an attack, but he knew that many persons, in bringing forward this question, had mixed up the character of Mr. Adam with it, in a most unjustifiable manner.
§ Lord J. Russelldefended the course he had taken on a former evening. The gentlemen around him had no more notice of what he meant to do than the gentleman opposite had. And when he stated that he would introduce the petition, he did not give notice of what he would afterwards do, because he wished to leave it open to himself to pursue that course which might, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, appear to be necessary. He considered the course which he had adopted to be as regular as any other that could be pointed out. He conceived that he, or any other member, was competent to bring forward the motion, without giving notice 1115 to the House. He saw no reason why he should adopt a course of proceeding which would enable ministers to issue their summons to the individuals in that House who were the representatives of Downing-street, calling on them to give their vote on a question, the merits of which they had not heard discussed. He thought it was always better to have a question decided by those who had listened to the discussion (which was the case in this instance), than by those who had not. As to the subject itself, it had long been before the public: it had been agitated in various ways, and was, therefore, a question of which no man could be completely ignorant. The learned gentleman who had just sat down had asserted, that these attempts to procure redress were in reality brought forward to degrade the character of Mr. Adam. He, for one, must solemnly disclaim any such intention. Until he perfectly understood the nature of the case, he had felt unwilling, from his knowledge of the family of Mr. Adam, and from the character which that gentleman bore in India, to have any thing to do with it. But when he at length found, that Mr. Buckingham had been refused redress in every quarter to which he had applied, he thought that no consideration of the family connexion of any individual ought to prevent him from bringing forward a case, which appeared to him to be one of severe individual hardship. He considered that it was his privilege to bring forward the motion in question without notice. He was not obliged to give the Treasury an opportunity to send forth their notices, and to bring down their regular pack to vote on the occasion.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that Mr. Adam's character or conduct had nothing to do with this petition. Mr. Buckingham complained of the destruction of his property, which had taken place after Mr. Adam had left the government, and when he was absent for the benefit of his health. The sending Mr. Buckingham from India by Mr. Adam, and the subsequent destruction of his property under the government of lord Amherst, were two very distinct questions.
§ Mr. Astellsaid, that the honorable gentleman wished to persuade the House, that the case of Mr. Buckingham, as it had been brought before them, applied only to the destruction of his property subsequently to his leaving India; 1116 but he begged leave to say, that the great grievance of Mr. Buckingham, and that which formed the principal feature of his complaint, was his removal from India, which was set forth at large in his petition. That removal had been rendered necessary by his own conduct, and the conduct of the writers in his paper, who were continually vilifying government. The house ought not, therefore, to be led away by the partial statements of the hon. gentleman. As Mr. Adam's name had been mentioned, he would take that opportunity—as he would seize every opportunity that occurred—to do that individual justice. He would say of him, that a more able, zealous, or upright servant of the East India Company never lived. The loss of that excellent man could not be easily repaired; and he must declare, that the name of Mr. Adam had been most unjustly coupled with these proceedings.
The Solicitor Generalobserved, that Mr. Buckingham having appealed to the privy council, and that body having decided against his appeal, he thought it a most unusual course to bring the subject before parliament. In common fairness, a notice of the noble lord's intention to move for a select committee ought to have been given; because he believed many individuals would have voted against the motion, had they been aware that it was a matter between Mr. Buckingham and the East India Company on which the privy council had adjudicated.
The motion was then agreed to. On the motion of lord John Russell, Mr. Abercromby and sir C. Forbes were added to the committee. Mr. Wynn then moved that Mr. Stuart, colonel Baillie, Mr. VV. Peel, sir E. H. East, Mr. Ross, lord G. Somerset, Mr. Wellesley, and colonel Lushington, be added to the committee.
§ Lord Miltonobserved, that the parties now proposed were either in office, or connected with the East India Company; whereas, when the committee were appointed the other night, he believed the names were taken alternately from both sides of the House.
§ Lord J. Russellsaid, that there were on the committee which was appointed on Tuesday evening, five persons, who were either commissioners of the Board of Control, or East India directors,—individuals who were certain to vote against Mr. Buckingham's claim. Of the other members of the committee, a considerable 1117 portion of them were gentlemen who sat on the Opposition side of the House, and who were in favour of inquiry. The right hon. gentleman had, however, introduced the names of a number of persons, who had either places under the Crown, or who were connected with the East India Company. This, he contended, was not fair. He was sure that the right hon. gentleman's ancestor, Mr. Speaker Williams, did he preside in the Chair, would be ashamed of a committee thus partially selected.
§ Mr. Peelwas of opinion, that Mr. Speaker Williams would rather be ashamed of the manner in which the committee was selected on Tuesday last, than of the addition which it was now proposed to make to it. A noble lord had stated, that the members of the committee had been taken alternately from both sides of the House. Now, out of sixteen names, ten had been taken from the opposite side of the House; and one of the remaining six had made a speech in favour of Mr. Buckingham. Two names of gentlemen who were favourable, he believed, to this claim, had since been added to the list; so that there was a balance of 13 against 5.
§ Mr. Humesaid, the right hon. gentleman should allow others to act on the principle which he and his friends had adopted in forming the committee, in the early part of the session, on the Scotch and Irish currency. On that occasion, a committee of twenty-one persons had been appointed, three only of whom could speak the sentiments of the people of Scotland with respect to the currency question; while the other members of the committee were all ready to destroy the present circulation of Scotland. There was the chancellor of the Exchequer decidedly in favour of an alteration. Mr. Peel also in favour of it.
§ Mr. Hume.—I beg to state my recollection of the matter; having, on the very day, noted the circumstance, as proving this to be the most partial list that was ever drawn up.
§ Mr. Humeproceeded to contend, that the list of the committee appointed to consider Mr. Buckingham's petition was not a partial one. The list was put into the noble lord's hand partly written, and the success of his motion was as little 1118 expected by the noble lord as it was by him. Therefore, there could have been no premeditation. The proposition now made, by which the Board of Control and the Court of Directors would have an opportunity of deciding on the case of this individual, was absolutely ridiculous. It was completely depriving Mr. Buckingham of any chance of success.
§ Mr. Peelsaid, that undoubtedly he had a strong opinion on the subject of Scotch currency. He thought it was right to extend to Scotland the system which prevailed in this country. But, when the motion for a committee was made by his right hon. friend, he did not say a word on the subject; so, it was impossible that the hon. member could have taken any note on the subject. When the hon. member said there were but three members connected with Scotland appointed on that committee, he was at a loss to know on what principle it was that he formed his calculation. He, however, could say very little for the correctness of the hon. member's estimate. He found on that committee, besides those whom the hon. member had mentioned, the lord Advocate, lord F. Gower, who could not be said to have no interest in the question, and Mr. W. Gordon; and when the hon. member for Aberdeen proposed Mr. W. Gordon, he ought to recollect that the proposition was at once agreed to.
§ Mr. Trantsaid, in answer to the observation which had been made by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel), that he went into the committee without any bias on his mind. He was perfectly open to conviction. He scorned the imputation of going into a committee of inquiry with his mind made up to a particular decision.
§ Mr. Peelsaid, he had not insinuated that the hon. member had any undue bias on his mind. He had merely observed, that the hon. member had spoken and voted in favour of the motion.
§ Mr. Scarlettobserved, that if the object of this committee was fair inquiry, it certainly ought not to be filled up by those who had voted against such inquiry.
§ The names proposed by Mr. Wynn were then added to the committee.