The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-25 00:00:00

of both houses of Parliament should be formed nutlet the
the bill, in order to get over the difficulty and delay of
taking the same evidence several times.
Mr. HARDY objected to the same committee being ap-
pointed to sit on the question of the alleged general bribery
and corruption of the burgh, and also on that of which
of the two gentlemen ought to be the member. The ques-
tions were perfectly distinct from each other, and ought to
be settled by s-parite committee.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was opposed to the suggestion
of the hon. member--the appointment of two committees,
where one was perfectly competent to decide on the merits
cf both questions, Two committees would not only be
attended with much inconvenience, but would iucur very
considerable additional expense.
Mr. O'CONNELL—The best way would be, to leave
the reduction of the committee to the Speaker. That, he
thought, would be a very convenient arrangement; and
he would venture to prophecy, that the house would be
perfectly satisfied with the reduction which the right hon. 1
gentleman should mike..=(Hear.)
Mr. HA LCOMB was of opinion, that before the house
proceeded further in the matter, it ought to have some
definition made to it of what the meaning of general
bribery and corruption was otherwise every committee
would entertain a different opinion on the subject. He
thought it would be by far the preferable course, to have
a committee to investigate the matter; and that, if such
committee should report there existed a prima facie cane,
the wl ole circumstances should I e referred to a tribunal of
hon. members, with one of the Judges of the land at their
head, and that such tribunal should decide on the matter
judicially.
Mr. HARDY thought that bribery was an offence
which should be tried before the same tribunal which tried
other offences. This was the best and the shortest course.
The hon. member mentioned a case in which a member
of the house, a Colonel of the Middlesex militia, being
convicted by a courtmartial for defrauding his men of
their rations, the house expelled him as an unfit member,
solely on the strength of his conviction by the courtmar-
tial. Bribery he considered as great an offence as felony,
and should be tried by the same tribunal.
Lord J. RUSSELL said (as we understood), that the
only objection to taking the matter into a court of law,
would be the unlimited extent of litigation which would
be necessary. The clause, if it were insisted upon, how-
ver. might be postponed.
We did not clearly understand whether this was ac-
cepted, or whether the clause was agreed to ; but we be-
lieve that the latter was the case.
Clauses 4,5, 6,7, 6, were then agreed to without com-
ment.

On clause 9 being read,
Mr. PRYME said it would be an invidious task for the
Speaker to select the 11 members out of the 33 proposed
by the house. The best way would be, to have the number
selected by the same course as in special kr:ie..
Mr. WYNN agreed that the task of selection would be,
at hest, an invidinue one for the Speaker.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that this was a question more
of justice and pulley than of individu d interests, and it
was most desirable to have persons on the committee in
whom the most per'ect confidence would be felt, and
whose decisions would be entirely free from suspicion. In
his opinion the Speaker would he the best possible judge
of the eleven to be selected out of the thirty.three bal-
loted for.
Sir W. W. WYNN thought that the advantage of the
thirty-three being selected by the Speaker would be that
experienced members would he chosen, and the number
might be reduced to eleven, by the parties interested being
allowed to strike off, as was done in special jury cases.
Lord J. RUSSELL was of opinion that it ought not
to be competent to the Speaker to select the names in the
first instance. This would be to impose a most disagree.
able and arduous duty on him, A great many of the
members so selected would perhaps be engaged in other
business, and would make very strong interest with the
Speaker to avoid being chosen. The consequence would
be that the Speaker would get a list of names that would
neither satisfy himself, the individuals chosen, the house,
nor the parties interested.
Colonel EVANS considered that any mode would be
pr t era bre to the present one.
Mr. TENNYSON contended that to appoint the
Sp-aker to select the eleven names would be to impose on
him a most painful and invidious duty; and wha,ever
the result, a suspicion would be likely to exist that the
decision would have been different if the committee had
been otherwise chosen. With respec► to the proposal of
his right hon. friend (Sir W. W. Wynn), he must say
that he thought it liable to less objections than any other.
No doubt, however,. there were objections to all the plans.
If it were the duty of the Speaker to appoint the 33
members, he did not see that there would be anything
invidious in the right hon. gentleman's so doing. It was
possible that theme might be atnongst those chosen some
connexion of the pestles. interested, but that objection was
provided for by the right hon. member for Montgomery-
shire by the right of challenge.
Sir W. W. WYNN said, he wes ready either to submit
his suggestion as a notice of a motion for some future
evening, or to propose it now. He thought the motion
had better be discussed on another occasion.
Mr. PRYME was understood to acquiesce in the sug-
eestion of the right hon. gentleman, but there were general
cries of " Divide."
Mr. F. PALMER said he was opposed to both the
plans proposed. He did not know which was the more
objectionable, that which would impose on the Speaker
the duty of selecting the eleven, or that in accordance
with which he would have to choose the thirty-three.
Sir W. W. WYNN said, that if the principle of the
amendment were adopted, there would be a complete
analogy between that mode and the way in which Special
Juries were obtained under the 9th George IV.
Mr. O'REILLY said he was favourable to the plan of
the noble lord, for a proposal to alter which he had not
heard any sufficient reason.
Sir R. INGLIS thought the better mode would be,
having got the thirteen names, to allow each party to
strike off one ; this would be a sufficient protection
against a relative of the party interested, or any other
objectionable person being placed on the committee.
Lord J. RUSSELL opposed further delay, because he
despaired of being able to improve the meastee. He had
devoted ten years' attention to this subj, tee and the result
was he could offer no better remedy for the inconsistencies
arising nut of the present s2.stem.
The house then divided, when their appeared—
For the original clause 43
For the amendment :34
Majority
_

On the motion that the clause stand pin of the bill.
Mr. A GLIONBY announced himself decidedly opposed
to the appointment of nominees, whose situation, he said,
made them advocates in the committee, and judges in the
house.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL contended for the advantage
and convenience of having two members of the House of
Commons present at the investigation by the committee,
but who did not vote.
Mr. WYNN otiected to nominees.
Mr. S. RICE was favourable to the clause. He ad.
mitted there was an anomaly in the nominee system, and
if it could be avoided, would prefer the absence of any
thing which had the appearance of partizanship. But
the duty of a nominee did not necessarily involve prrtiz in-
ship. His business in the committee was to take care
that no evidence should be mistaken, and no party misre-
presented, and the consequence of nomination was, that
the reports were better, and contained fewer blunders.
Mr. WYNN instanced a case in which Mr. Fox and
the then Attorney-General being nominees, together with
the Chairman of the committee, were one way, and the 12
independent members of the committee were the other
way. This appeared as if the nominees could be diadensed
Kith. Besides, it was easy to conceive a case in which
the house may nominate two members who did not choose
to act.

Sir T. FREMANTLE thought the nominees ad van,
tageous, more especially in the event of the parties not hav-
ing the aid of counsel.
Mr. MARK PHILLIPS wished to have the system of
nominees extinguished, and, indeed, would be well pleased
if committees were entirely done away with, and some
Judicial tribunal established in tin ir stead. In the case of
the Liverpool inquiry, which had been so exciting, he
'opposed there was so much personal feeling towards the
nominees, that if they were caught in Liverpool one would
be tailed and feathered, and the other complimented with
a piece of plate.—(A laugh.)
Nit. R. WASON thought there weuld be a saving of
half the time and half the expense, if nominees were done
away with, so many questions and cross-questions arose
out of their appointment. The committees sitting with
closed doors created a want of confidence in the public,
which want would be in some degree obviated if they di-
vided in public.
Mr. AGLIONBY moved, as sn amendment to the
clause, that from the 10th, to the 14th line be omitted.
Mr. HARVEY observed that it was unusua,, after the
Nits had been closed, to renew a battle on any clause.
Mr. ROMILLY was understood to object to nominees.
After a few words from Mr. C. BULLER, the commit-
e divided, when there appeared—
For the Amendment _l9
For the original Clause 35
Majority -16

Clauses 11 40 12 were then agreed to; whey, on the