HC Deb 19 March 1840 vol 52 cc1247-50

The question as to the nomination of the committee was then again put from the Chair.

Sir Robert Peel

did not intend to object to the names of any of the Members whom the right hon. Gentleman proposed to place upon the committee; but seeing, that those names were so unusually numerous, he was afraid that the inquiry would be a very protracted one. For his own part, he thought it would be found very advantageous if the inquiry were divided into separate branches; and the separate committee, consisting of not more than from twelve to thirteen Members, should be appointed for the consideration of each branch.

Mr. Hume moved to add the names of Sir Henry Parnell and Mr. Thornley.

Sir Robert Peel

objected to this addition as aggravating the evil of which he had previously complained. He begged to remind the hon. Gentleman that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already departed from the ordinary rules of the House, which was to limit the numbers of committees to fifteen.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

, as far as he was personally concerned, had not the slightest objection to either of the names suggested by the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Hume), but he felt that the efficiency of the committee would be impaired, if its numbers were increased. The committee, as he had proposed it, he thought was fairly constituted, and he hoped the House would not consent to increase it.

Mr. Hume's

motion negatived.

Mr. Raikes Currie moved to add the name of Mr. Warburton. The great and distinguished exertions made by that hon. Gentleman upon Lord Althorp's committee in 1832 entitled the hon. Member to be on the committee, and his services would be most valuable.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

would not object to the addition of this name, if he were assured that no other would be pressed upon him.

Sir R. Peel

If the right hon. Gentleman assents to the addition of Mr. Warburton, how is he to escape from the addition of Sir Henry Parnell.

Mr. R. Currie

would take the sense of the House upon the question.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said that he did not desire to put the House to a division upon this point. If Mr. Warburton's name were insisted upon, he would not object to it; his only reason for not proposing it himself was, that he thought the Government was sufficiently represented by the names he had previously placed upon the committee.

Mr. Shaw

thought that it seemed improper for the right hon. Gentleman, after he had well considered the names of the persons to be nominated, now to alter the decision.

Sir R. Peel

would resist the addition. He would not give way, and would vote against the right hon. Gentleman, not out of any disrespect to Mr. Warburton, but because the committee was already quite numerous enough.

Mr. Smith O'Brien

suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should substitute Mr. Warburton and Sir H. Parnell for some names already named on the committee.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

thought it not impossible that some gentleman named on the committee would not attend, and, under such circumstances, he would certainly substitute the name of the hon. Member for Bridport.

Motion withdrawn.

Mr. Edmund Turner moved to add Mr. Blewitt's name to the committee. That hon. Member was well acquainted with, and had taken an active part in, the management of joint-stock banks, and because on the committee, as named, there was not one person acquainted with joint-stock banks of issue. There were on the committee three members of private banks of issue—the chairman and a governor of the Bank of England, Mr. Sergeant Jackson, connected with the Bank of Ireland, and two members of private banking firms in London; and he must therefore make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer (although Sir T. Fremantle was on the committee, who was a director of a joint-stock bank, not being, however, a bank of issue) in favour of the hon. Member for Newport, that the inquiry should be fair and not partial, and that the report should be such as to carry weight with the country.

Mr. Wodehouse

objected to add the name.

Mr. Gisborne

said, that any joint-stock bank in the country could, if it pleased, become a bank of issue, and he could not, therefore, see any distinction between the two; still he thought that there was not a sufficient number of persons on the committee connected with these banks.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

would read the names of the parties connected with joint-stock banks; Mr. Gisborne, Sir Thomas Fremantle, Mr. Matthias Attwood, Mr. O'Connell, and Mr. Hector, who were on the committee; and as it did not seem to him necessary that persons intimately and personally connected with every branch of the banking business should be on the committee, he must therefore oppose the motion.

Motion withdrawn.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved that the committee be secret.>

Mr. Hume

wished to know why a committee, which was very interesting to the whole community, should be secret?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

reminded the House that, in all cases in which the Bank charter had been inquired into, the committees were secret, and had been secret with the greatest advantage, as the House thereby obtained much valuable information which would not otherwise be gained. He did not see any reason in the present case for departing from the former practice.

Mr. Smith O'Brien

trusted, that the decision was not final; and if Mr. Hume would press his objection to a division, he certainly should divide with him.

Sir R. Peel

said, that if by a secret committee was meant a committee of secrecy, it would be objectionable; but he did not so understand it: for the committee on joint-stock banks was a secret committee, and yet it obtained very valuable private information, the results of which were published to the world, although the particulars could not have been obtained if the whole had been published to the injury of the parties. All that was required was, that the committee should be at liberty, if it thought proper, not to publish the whole of every portion of the evidence.

The House divided—Ayes 33; Noes 23—Majority 10.

List of the AYES.
Baines, E. Mildmay, P. St. J.
Baring, F. T. Morpeth, Lord
Barry, G. S. Palmerston, Lord
Bowes, J. Peel, Sir R.
Bramston, T. W. Pigott, D. R.
Brodie, W. B. Rae, Sir W.
Bruges, W. H. L. Round, C. G.
Chetwynd, Major Rundle, J.
Dick, Q. Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Style, Sir C.
Fremantle, Sir T. Tufnell, H.
Freshfield, J. W. Wodehouse, E.
Goulburn, H. Wood, G. W.
Graham, Sir J. Yates, J. A.
Hobhouse, Sir J.
Hodges, T. L. TELLERS.
Hodgson, R. Clay, W.
Hughes, W. B. Gordon, R.
Lynch, A. H.
List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A. M'Taggart, J.
Bainbridge, E. T. Morris, D.
Beamish, F. B O'Connell, M. J.
Blewitt, R. J. Pechell, Captain
Brotherton, J. Rushbrooke, Colonel
Duke, Sir J. Salwey, Colonel
Dundas, C. W. D. Turner, E.
Ellis, W. Vere, Sir C. B.
Fielden, J. Vigors, N. A.
Gisborne, T.
Hindley, C. TELLERS.
Hobhouse, T. B. Hume, J.
Langdale, hon. C. O'Brien, W. S.
Lister, E. C.
Mr. Hume

would like to know how far the secrecy was meant to extend; if he wished to contradict any statements that were made, could he communicate the evidence to the person who could contradict it?

The Speaker

said, that as the House had decided that this was a committee of secrecy, the hon. Member would not be at liberty to furnish to any person the evidence which might be brought before it.

Mr. Hume

could only say, then, that the committee would be of no use.