The Sun.
London, England, 1836-02-17 00:00:00

that he should be taken from the neutral Members, but it was
said in reply that it was much easier to find neutral Members
on the opposite than on his side of the House.---( Laughter. )
He had proposed the name of Mr. R. Colborne, as that of an
independent and impartial man, likely to give satisfaction to
all parties. The Hon. Baronet then proceeded to say, that
any change which had taken place in the constitution of the
Committee had been produced, first by the refusal of the Right
Hon.„Baronet the Member for Tamworth to serve upon it,
and secondly, by the necessity of appointing none upon the
Committee but those who could devote their entire time and
attention to-the duties of the investigation.
Mr. E. J. STANLEY entertained the same views respect-
ing the question of the appointment of the Committee as the
Hon. Member for Bridport. When the Right Hon. Baronet
the Member for Tamworth refused to allow himself to be ap-
pointed one of the Members of the Committee, he (Mr. S.)
thought that no Cabinet Minister should be nominated either.
An Hon. and Learned Member on his side of the House (the
Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets) was objected to be-
cause he was a judicial character. The same objection was
urged against the original nomination of an Hon. and Learned
Member on the other side, who upon that ground was rejected.
Upon the same principle it was mutually agreed that no Irish
Member, or no Member of the late or the present Administra-
tion, should be nominees. He had understood that after the
communication with the Hon. and Learned Member for Dub-
lin, adverted to by the Hon. Member for Bridport, no further
objection had been, or wasio be, made to the appointment of
this Committee,which, it was understood,was then agreed upon.
The list of the proposed Committee was again read over.
Mr. WARBURTON objected to the name of Mr. Barneby
Tieing on the list. He entertained no personal objection to
that Hon. Gentleman, but he did not think that he had suffi-
cient standing in the House to carry a proper degree of weight.
There had been a departure from the original agreement, ac-
cording to which the name of Dr. Lushington was on the
list • but that had since been removed, as well as that of Mr.
Wilson Patten. He (Mr. Warburton) should propose that
either Mr. Robert Clive or Mr. Wilson Patten be placed on
the Committee, instead of the Hon. Member for Droitwich
(Mr. Barneby).
Mr. R. CLIVE (as we understood) stated that he could
not serve on the Committee withdut great personal inconve-
nience to himself ; he therefore trusted that the House would
consent to the nomination of some other Hon. Member.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN also begged to be excused on
similar grounds.
On the question being again put that the name of Mr.
Barneby be placed on the list,f
Lord JOHN RVSSELL said that he was extremely
anxious that some arrangement should take place, or that the
Committee could be named without giving rise to any serious
difference of opinion. Although there had been some mis-
understanding respecting the names, yet he had thought that
his Hon. Friend the Member for Bridport, and the Hon. Ba-
ronet the Member for Edinburghshire, had come to an ar-
rangement on the subject. He admitted that the Committee,
as originally agreed upon, contained the names of Hon. Mem-
bers having more experience in the House than the Hon.
Member for Droitwich, who was now proposed ; but when he
considered that the discussion had proceeded without that ex-
citement on either side of the House which might have been
expected from the nature of the question, and as every one
was aware how desirable it was that the Committee, should be
appointed without a division, so that they might at once pro-
ceed calmly, and without apparently different views to the con-
sideration of the subject, he thought that it would be much
more advantageous if his Hon. Friend did not press the ques-
tion to a vote. He would only add, that although the list of
the Committee now proposed was not exactly the same as that
previously agreed upon, still, as far as he was concerned, he
did not think that the fairness of the names could be ques-
tioned.—( Hear, hear.) _
Mr. WARBURTON observed that he would not press the
question to a division.
The name of Mr. Barneby was then placed on the list, and
the other names, as proposed, were agreed to.
Mr. WARBURTON then proposed that a nominee should
be appointed on each side. He might be necessary in the
cross-examinations of witnesses to press questions with great
severity, and that could be much better done by nominees than
by members of this Committee. If this were not done `some of
the meibers of the Committee might be heated by the nature
of the cross-examinations that might be pursued by other
members. If the Hon. Member or the Hon. Baronet was pre-
pared to name a gentlemen as a nominee, he (Mr. Warburton)
would also do so on the part of Mr. O'Connell.
Mr. ROBINSON objected to the appointment of nominees.
He did not see on what principle the House could consent to
such a proposition. When a fair Committee was appointed,
and the requisite information was furnished to enable them to
form a correct judgment, he did not see the necessity for no-
minees. He objected to it also as it was a departure from the
course pursued in similar cases.
Mr. E. J. STANLEY observed that the Hon. Member
was mistaken in supposing that it was a departure from the
usual course to appoint nominees in such a case as the pre-
sent. In this case it was clearly understood between the par-
ties when the list of the committee was agreed to, that a n--
mince should be appointed on each side, and this was consi-
dered a material point. It was desirable to keep the members
of the Committee as much as possible from anything like violent
heat% or to excite any feelings calculated to prevent them
forming a cool judgment, and certainly this was not likely to
be the case if the Members had to cross-examine the wit-
nesses at great length.
After a few words from Sir G. CLERK and Mr. C. W.
WYNN, which were inaudible,
Mr. WARBURTON observed that the understanding was
that the nominees should not be Irish Members, nor should
they have been Members of the late nor Members of the pre-
sent Government. The Hon. Member then proposed that
two nominees should be appointed, and that each nominee
should be a Member of the House, but should not have the
right of voting in the committee.—Motion agreed to.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that as it was agreed that two no-
minees should be appointed, he would suggest that Mr. Hardy
should name one, and Mr. O'Connell the other.
After a few words from the SPEAKER, which were not
heard in the gallery,
Mr. WARBURTON suggested that each party should
make a communication to the Speaker of the name of the
person proposed to be named as nominee. IThe Honourable
Member then apparently made some communication to the
Speaker.]
Sir G. CLERK was then loudly called for. He rose, and
stated that he did not think that there was any necessity for
such mystery as to the names of the Hon. Gentlemen to be
appointed nominees. He did not wish to make any difficulties
in the way of an arrangement, and had, according to the un-
derstanding, put down the name of the Hon. Gentleman he
proposed as a nominee. In a case of this nature he thought it
desirable that the Committee should have the advantage of
the talents and experience of Honourable Members of the
greatest learning and legal ability ; he had, therefore, put down
the name of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for
Huntingdon.
The SPEAKER then read the names of Sir F. Pollock
mi. Mr. Sergeant Wilde as the nominees. The question was
then put and carried that they should be appointed.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL hoped that it would be under-
stood that if any one of the members of the committee did
not attend, that other members would 'be appointed in their
places.—( Hear, hear.)
IRISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for Ireland then rose to
propose the introduction of the Irish Corporation Bill.
Sir ROBERT PEEL interrupted the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman, and suggested that as it was impossible after a
discussion of the exciting nature of that which the House had
just listened to, to induce Hon. Members to attend to calmly
to a new subject, he would recommend the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman to introduce his Bill at once, and to enter upon an
explanation of its details in proposing the second reading of it.
—( Hear, hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for Ireland said that lie
would gladly avail himself of the suggestion of the Right Hon.
Baronet. He then proposed that leave be given to bring in a 1
Bill for the regulation of Municipal Corporations in Ireland.
—Motion agreed to.
WITNESSES INDEMNIFICATION BILL.
On the motion of Mr. O'cONN EL L, leave was given to
bring in a Bill to indemnify witnesses examined before any se-
lect Committee of the House of Commons, and also to punish
witnesses guilty of giving wilfully and corruptly false evidence
before any such committee.
PUBLIC WALKS.
Mr. BUCKINGHAM moved for leave to bring in a Bill
fur the formation of public walks and gardens, and places of
healthy recreation in the open air.
After a desultory conversation, in which several Members
took part, but which was inaudible in the gallery, the motion
was agreed to.
Mr. HUM E moved for a " return of the number of persons
qualified to vote at any election which shall take place between
Ist Nov. 1835, and Ist Nov. 1836, for a knight or knights of
of the shire to serve in Parliament for any county, agreeably
to the lists settled by the Revising barristers, and stating, if
possible, the number of electors who have qualified to vote on
two or more qualifications." Also similar returns for Scot-
land and Ireland.—Ordered.
The House adjourned at ten o'clock.