THE BERWICK-UPON TWEED ELECTION. (Hansard, 26 May 1853)

§ MR. MITCHELL
then moved that the Select Committee upon the Berwick-upon-Tweed Election Petition should consist of the following Members:—Mr. Thomas Mitchell, Mr. Edmund Denison, Mr. Mullings, and Mr. Collier.

§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE
said, that great inconvenience had arisen in former and in the present Sessions, in consequence of Committees having been nomi- 648 nated by Members who were interested in the charges brought before them; and the practice had led to the decision of the Committee having been received with want of respect. He would, therefore, move as an Amendment, "That it be an Instruction to the General Committee of Elections to select a Chairman and four other Members to be the Select Committee on the Berwick-upon-Tweed Election Petition, and that the Members so selected do constitute the said Committee, and that they have power to send for persons, papers, and records." He thought that in cases where parties brought forward Motions and expressed strong opinions in regard to matters in which the personal honour of other parties was affected, some other means of appointing the Committee of Inquiry than the nomination of the person bringing forward these charges should be resorted to. The course which he recommended in this instance was quite in accordance with that which was followed on the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for London, in the case of the Stamford petition, in 1848.

§ SIR J. TROLLOPE
would remind the House that the duties of the Committee of Elections were laid down and defined in the Act of Parliament. Those duties had been infringed in the case of the Derby inquiry by the desire of the House, although the Committee was not actually in existence at the time, not having been sworn. He wished to remind the hon. Baronet the Member for Petersfield (Sir W. Jolliffe) that upon that occasion the House had expressly desired the Committee of Selection to nominate the Members to conduct the inquiry. If it was the pleasure of the House that the General Committee of Elections should undertake this duty, he would not, as their Chairman, oppose it, but he gave this assent under protest that this was a departure from the duties expressly prescribed for them by Act of Parliament.

§ MR. MITCHELL
would leave the matter entirely in the hands of the House; but he would ask the hon. Baronet the Member for Petersfield (Sir W. Jolliffe) how the inquiry was to be conducted, if the Members who were cognisant of the facts: of the case were excluded; for it must be recollected that no lawyer would appear before such a Committee as the present.

§ MR. BRIGHT
, while approving of the 649 appointment of the Committee by the General Committee of Elections, still thought that some Members who were acquainted with the facts of the case, and were therefore able to conduct the inquiry, should be placed upon it.

§ SIR JAMES GRAHAM
concurred in the observations of the hon. Member for Manchester, that when a charge affecting the personal honour of a Gentleman not present was made, and when the person who preferred the accusation was a Member of the House, it would be unseemly to allow that Member to form one of the tribunal. On the other hand, if justice were to be done, there would be great disadvantage in forming a tribunal without any Members who were cognisant of the facts to elicit the truth. He recollected an inquiry into a matter concerning the personal honour of two Members of that House, which arose out of an Irish election. In that case an impartial tribunal was chosen, much in the manner recommended by the hon. Member for Petersfield, but in addition to the Committee so chosen, a Member, a friend of each party, was present, in order to examine the witnesses. He forgot whether they had voices in the Committee or not. He thought in this case a fair tribunal would be constituted if a Committee of five were appointed, and the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Mitchell) to be added, together with another Member, a friend of Mr. Hodgson's.

§ MR. S. WORTLEY
instanced the case of the Stamford inquiry, in which he had conducted the case on one side, as a precedent.

§ SIR JOHN TROLLOPE
said, that if the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) were adopted, the Committee must consist of more than five Members. In the case of the Stamford inquiry the Committee consisted of eight and the Chairman.

§ MR. MITCHELL
expressed his readiness to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet.

§ SIR J. PAKINGTON
was a Member of the Stamford Committee, the number of which was nine, one Member, Sir W. P. Wood, conducting the inquiry on one side, and the hon. Recorder for London on the other. He thought the best plan would be to adopt the mode suggested by the hon. Baronet the Member for Petersfield, "that a Committee should be appointed in the first instance by the Committee of 'Elections, and that then a Member on 650 each side should be added, for the purpose of conducting the inquiry.