HC Deb 08 February 1858 vol 148 cc964-7

On Motion of the CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER it was

Ordered, That the Select Committee do consist of Twenty-five Members.

The list of the proposed Members having been read over as follows:—The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, Mr. DISRAELI, Sir JAMES GRAHAM, Mr. SPOONER, Sir CHARLES WOOD, Mr. GEORGE A. HAMILTON, Mr. GLADSTONE, Mr. CAYLEY, Sir FRANCIS BARING, Mr. VANCE, Mr. CABDWELL, Mr. BLACKBURN, Mr. WILSON, Mr. HORSFALL, Mr. WEGUELIN, Mr. HANKEY, Mr. HOPE JOHN-STONE, Mr. ENNIS, Mr. PULLER, the Earl of GIFFORD, Mr. FERGUS, Mr. JOHN L. RICARDO, Mr. PRICE, Mr. M. TUCKER SMITH, and Mr. GLYN;

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chancellor of the Exchequer be one of the Members of the said Committee."

MR. CAYLEY

suggested that the hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Tite) and Cambridgeshire (Mr. E. Ball) should be added to the Committe.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that he had substituted the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) for the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, because it had been represented to him that there was a want of commercial members on the Committee. He had no personal object in the nomination, but he submitted that the Committee was already a large one.

MR. GREER

hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not insist on the nomination of the Committee on that evening; if he did, he (Mr. Greer) should move the adjournment of the debate. He hoped that mercantile men and the representatives of the railway and shipping interests would be added to the Committee.

MR. BENTINCK

said, that one would imagine, from what was constantly said in that House, that England was composed of nothing but cities and boroughs, and he must enter his protest against the system which is now invariably adopted of endeavouring to supersede the agricultural interest in Committees. He hoped the name of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire would be re-inserted.

MR. TITE

said, he did not complain of any personal discourtesy in his name being omitted from the Committee; but, being connected with the joint-stock bank interest of the City of London, and having diligently attended the sittings of the Committee, he should have been glad to continue to be a member if the public interests had required his attendance.

MR. BALL

said, he could not suppose that any personal discourtesy was intended to him. It happened, however, that eighteen out of the twenty-five members of the Committee were connected with commerce, and it was not fair to the agricultural interest that it should only be represented by seven members.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

disclaimed any feeling of personal discourtesy towards the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ball), whose good temper and urbanity were recognized by Members on both sides of the House.

MR. HENLEY

said, he could not admit that the agricultural interests were not deeply interested in this question. The question of the country banks was involved, and it was ill-judged to put off from the Committee an hon. Member (Mr. Ball) who was so well acquainted with this particular branch of the subject.

MR. CAIRNS

believed that great satisfaction would be felt in Scotland and Ireland that the banking interests of those countries were about to be better represented on the Committee than they had hitherto been.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

was afraid that much inconvenience would result from the course proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that it would re-open the whole question. The only ground named for the exclusion of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire was that he was an agricultural Member; but he was the representative of the tenant-farmers of England, who were greatly interested in the question. He did not think that any ground had been shown for the exclusion made.

MR. GREER moved the adjournment of the debate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

MR. PRICE

, as one of the number selected, should say, that while he had no particular desire to serve on the Committee, he thought that some one who represented the joint-stock banks ought to be on it.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

thought that more time should be taken to consider the important question of the formation of this Committee.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

thought that the matter could be disposed of now. If the House thought the Committee should be re-appointed as it stood last year, he had no objection, and would omit the names of the two hon. Members, and restore the two names which he had proposed to omit. The Committee could subsequently be enlarged if the House thought fit.

Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the Chancellor of the Exchequer be one of the members of the said Committee," put, and agreed to.

Mr. DISRAELI, Sir JAMES GRAHAM, Mr. SPOONER, Sir CHARLES WOOD, Mr. GEORGE A. HAMILTON, Mr. GLADSTONE, Mr. CAYLEY, Sir FRANCIS BARING, Mr. VANCE, Mr. CARDWELL, Mr. BLACKBURN, Mr. WILSON, Mr. WEGUELIN, Mr. HANKEY, Mr. HOPE JOHNSTONS, Mr. ENNIS, Mr. PULLER, the Earl of GIFFORD, Mr. FERGUS, Mr. JOHN L. RICARDO, Mr. M. TUCKER SMITH, and Mr. GLYN, nominated other Members of the said Committee.

Power to send for persons, papers, and records; five to be the quorum.

SIR DE LACY EVANS moved, "That the Select Committee do consist of the following Members:"

Question proposed.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON moved, that the word "nine" should be substituted for "following." Inasmuch as he had before the Christmas holidays expressed an opinion that the Government had not availed themselves of all the means in their power in sending reinforcements to India, and this was, in fact, a judicial Committee to inquire into the conduct of the Executive, he did not think that he ought to be a member of it. He thought that the proceedings of the Sebastopol Committee were a precedent for those of this Committee, and that it ought to sit de die in diem, until the whole of the evidence was exhausted, in order that a report might be presented as speedily as possible, to satisfy the public, who, as the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had himself admitted, was entitled to an investigation of the charges of incompetence and dilatoriness against the Executive Government with regard to this subject.

Amendment proposed,—

To leave out the words "the following," in order to insert the word "nine" instead thereof.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

was in favour of the Committee in the form proposed by the hon. and gallant General rather than in that of the right hon. Baronet; and he was convinced that when witnesses came to be examined it would be shown that the Government did right in the arrangements which they carried out for the transport of troops to India.

SIR DE LACY EVANS

said, the right hon. Baronet was mistaken as to the precedent of the Sebastopol Committee, for it did not consist of nine, but of eleven members. He would adhere to the number of the Committee as originally proposed. He did not think the inquiry would be of a very prolonged character; but he had no objection that the Committee should sit daily if the Members thought fit.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Committee nominated:

Sir DE LACT EVANS, Viscount GODERIOH, Lord STANLEY, Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, Mr. HORSMAN, Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE, Sir JAMBS ELPHINSTONE, Mr. ADDERLEY, Sir CHARLES NAPIER, Mr. OSBORNE, Captain VIVIAN, Mr. BYNG, Mr. WILLOUGHBY, Mr. CRAWFORD, and Mr. SEYMOUR.

Power to send for persons, papers, and records; five to be the quorum.

House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.