evidence taken before the committee on the cotton-bill, last year, in which a Mr. Booth stated, that he had delivered to the Manchester Chronicle, and paid fifteen guineas for the insertion of an article which advocated the principle of the bill, in limiting the hours of labour as equivalent to a higher rate of wages. The noble earl concluded by asking for delay, that the manufacturers might cool a little before the further agitation of the question. | been done by parliamentary interference ; and that afforded a strong argument why parliament should go on to complete its work. The motion was then postponed to this day fortnight. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, February 8. ELECTION PETITIONS.] The Speaker said, he had to make a report to the The Bishop of Chester did not see any House respecting certain recognizances reason for thinking that on a future occa- to be entered into by those presenting sion there would be a fuller attendance petitions, complaining of the returns in of members. A noble earl had argued, Irish elections. Before he spoke of the that there existed a connexion between particular cases to which he alluded, he the disturbances in Manchester, during thought it might be for the convenience last Summer, and the exertions of the pe- of the House that he should state pretitioners; but he could assure him that cisely the situation in which these petithere was not the least foundation for tioners stood. By an act of the 28th of such an opinion. The imputations thrown the king it was provided, that the petion the petitioners were, therefore, entirely tioners should enter into certain recoggroundless. They had conducted them- nizances within fourteen days, and failing selves with the most perfect prudence, to do so, it was imperative on the Speaker with the most complete submission to the to report that these had not been entered laws, and in the most inoffensive manner. into, and thereupon the petition being He had himself been asked by them, whe- taken into consideration, any order for rether he would advise meetings to be called ferring it to an election committee was to at Manchester, Bolton-le-Moors, and be discharged. By an act of the 48th of Stockport, for the purpose of petitioning the king it was provided, that if the petiparliament, and he advised them to call tioners were in Ireland, though no exten no such meetings. He warned them of sion of the time formerly allowed for pre the dangers that might ensue, and gave senting petitions was granted in England, it as his opinion, that no advantage could a further time should be allowed for giving result from such a measure. Accordingly, the Speaker notice of the recognizances no meeting was called at any of those having been entered into, and fourteen places, nor had the petitioners formed the days were allowed for that purpose, makleast connexion with those who had as-ing altogether twenty-eight days from the sembled in a more riotous manner. With opening of the first session of parliament regard to this last fact, he did not rest for entering into the recognizances, and merely on the circumstance he had men- giving notice of the same. A subsequent tioned, or the casual observation of even act of parliament, passed in the 53rd of people well informed. Some of the the king, called on the petitioner to enter rioters of Stockport were tried at Chester, into heavy recognizances for counsel's and he himself had attended, for the ex- fees, and other expenses, and for entering press purpose of ascertaining whether any into these the same time was allowed as connexion like that stated by the noble in the act of the 28th of the king, but by earl really existed, and he had left the some oversight no time had been allowed court with the conviction that there was over the fourteen days to petitioners in no ground for the charge. He held in his Ireland to give notice of these recognizances hand an address from the petitioners, de. having been duly entered into. The proclaring that they held in abhorrence the vision made in the act of the 48th of the disturbances that had disgraced Manches- king, must, by some accident, have been ter and its neighbourhood last Summer. overlooked when that bill was passed, or He could not help remarking, that the the same arrangement would have been reason which the noble earl gave for re- made with respect to these recognizances fusing to proceed farther, was in his mind that had been thought necessary for the a good reason for hastening the enact- others. If he had succeeded in explain. ment of the law. Much good had alreadying the situation in which these petitioners stood, he thought there would be no difference of opinion on the subject. He would suggest, that the time should be enlarged for giving information of recognizances entered into, and that fourteen days should be allowed for that purpose. He then put the question severally on the petitions complaining of the returns for the county of Cork, for the county of Leitrim, and for Drogheda, that the time for receiving notice of the recognizances being entered into, should be enlarged till Friday, the 19th February.-Ordered. Lord the subject had been brought under the consideration of a convention of the burghs, in July. In answer to the question which had been put, he had to state, that it was his intention to propose the introduction of a bill similar to that which he had brought in during the last session. Lord A. Hamilton said, it gave him great satisfaction to hear that the learned lord intended shortly to introduce a bill; and he was also gratified to learn that the voice of the people, expressed by petition, was so much attended to as to cause the withdrawal of the former bill. ROYAL BURGHS OF SCOTLAND-PETITION FROM KIRKCUDBRIGHT.] A. Hamilton, in rising to present a petiMOTION FOR ADDING MR. BROUGHAM tion, said, that as this was the first petition TO THE BANK OF ENGLAND COMMITTEE.] on this subject in the present parliament, Mr. Calcraft rose, pursuant to notice, to he should claim the indulgence of the move that the name of Mr. Brougham be House for a few words. It was a petition added to the committee appointed to investicomplaining of the self-elected magistrates gate the affairs of the Bank. The extraorof the burghs of Scotland, an evil re- dinary fitness of his hon. and learned friend specting which there had been numerous for such a committee were not, he believed, applications to the last parliament;-and disputed by any individual in that House. he did not doubt but that this petition It was not, therefore, necessary for him would be, in the present session, followed to enter into a detail of those abilities by numerous applications. The petitioners which eminently qualified him for a detailed the evils of this system; they place on that committee. He had been pointed to the bankruptcy of several asked by several gentlemen, whether he burghs, especially of Aberdeen; and had any precedent for this proceeding? urged the impossibility of their keeping To this he answered, that he had found out dishonest magistrates, or of controlling a precedent exactly in point. In the year them when in office. They referred to 1781, the marquis of Graham was added the manner in which members were elected to a committee, although it was originally to that House, not as the immediate evil decided that it should only consist of they complaimed of, but as one growing twenty-one members. This took place on out of it. He hoped the House would the 11th of May, and, in the record of the really take into consideration the evil transaction on the Journals of the House, stated by the petitioners with a view to allusion was made to other precedents. do justice. He should take that opportu- He was not, therefore, making an unprenity, as he saw the learned lord imme- cedented motion. Having stated this to diately connected with the legal affairs of the House, he would not enter into any Scotland for the first time in his place, of invidious remarks, on those gentlemen putting a question to him. In the last whose names had been ballotted for, but session the learned lord had introduced a would content himself with moving, bill to remedy a part of the evil com-"That Mr. Brougham be added to the plained of by the petitioners, which had said committee." been, somewhat unaccountably, withdrawn. He wished to know, whether the learned lord intended to revive that bill, or to introduce any other.-The petition, which was from the burgh of Kirkcudbright was then brought up. The Lord Advocate of Scotland said, that the bill which the noble lord had described as having been withdrawn in an unaccountable manner, had been with drawn because those interested in it had petitioned that the bill might not pass till and Lord Castlereagh said, it would be very invidious to argue on individual members. He was perfectly convinced, that the talents of the hon. learned gentleman whose name had been mentioned, were every way suited to the examination of the subject to which the attention of the committee was called. It was not on account of that hon. and learned gentleman's want of capability, that he felt it necessary to oppose the motion, but because the grounds on which it was introduced, were in truth, in spirit, | to substitute another. But this was no and in practice, wholly destructive of the principle on which his majesty government called for a ballot, when a secret committee was about to be formed. The hon. member had mentioned a precedent as to the addition of a name to a committee which had been formed, but he had not mentioned whether it was a committee of secrecy ["it was," said Mr. Calcraft.] But if there was this precedent, there were more recent ones in which the House had refused to make an addition to the members of such committees. In 1797, a motion was made by Mr. Sheridan to add the name of Mr. Fox to the committee on the state of the Bank, which the House thought fit to negative.* In the last parliament too, when, on the absence of a member who had been chosen by the ballot at a considerable distance, it was proposed to withdraw his name, and to substitute that of another member, the House had decided that it would adhere to its own decision, and that as it had a claim upon the servicse of all its members, the absence of one of them was no reason for excusing him. Without making any personal objection to the individual, he would only say that the best course for parliament to pursue was, to adhere strictly to the old plan, which had been adopted, for a long series of years, in the formation of committees of secrecy. rule for the present case, nor did it prove any thing but that the ministers would never give way unless they had a decided majority of the House and the country against them. It was said, that in 1797 the House had decided that it would not admit Mr. Fox as a member of the committee. But because the House had been in the wrong then, was it any reason that it should be in the wrong now? If the object was, to obtain the best report, why should the committee consist of 21 rather than 22? They would not add the name to the committee, because it came from that side of the House. Their objection in reality was (what decorum would not allow them to utter), that Mr. Brougham did not sit on their benches. If, indeed, the numbers were so equally balanced, that an addition of one member from that side would endanger the ministerial majority, there might be an excuse for the opposition to the motion. But they had taken care to be abundantly secure on that point. Even with the addition of his hon. and learned friend, the members on the committee, who were in the habit of opposing ministers, would only be eight out of 22. Did any one of the ministers feel that they were in danger-did they think their majority of 14 so slippery? This was a question to which the House should look with great anxiety, for its decision Mr. Tierney observed, that the noble would be taken as an earnest of its intenlord had said that it would be invidious to tions; and if the House and the country state any objection to the nomination of were polled, no man would be declared by Mr. Brougham. It was, however, some- the general voice better fitted for extenthing more than invidious, it was ex-sive information and persevering research tremely difficult. Without saying any than his hon. and learned friend. thing in disparagement of other gentle. men, he would venture to assert, that no man would deny his hon. and learned friend's qualifications of the researches which the committee would be called on to make. There was not any gentleman in the House there was not any man in the House or in the kingdom, more eminently qualified to assist in the elucidation of any question connected with political economy. The defence which the noble lord had been driven upon was, to say, that when the committee was completed by ballot it should not be varied, and he had adduced as a precedent that when a gentleman was nominated who was 400 miles off, his name was not permitted to be withdrawn Mr. Stuart Wortley said, that fully agreeing in all that had been said by the gentlemen opposite him in favour of Mr. Brougham, he could not help saying that it was their fault Mr. Brougham was not a member of that committee. Formerly it had been the practice in ballots to draw up not one but two lists, one from the ministerial the other from the opposition side; on the present occasion about a hundred members balloted, but he observed that not one gentleman came from the opposition side to put in a list. If they had done their duty, if but half the minority which they had mustered had put in lists containing the name of Mr. Brougham, there would have been a very good chance that that gentleman would have formed one of the committee; for it was known that many members had al tered the ministerial list. After this he thought the House would not be persuaded to add another member to a committee already formed. Mr. Calcraft said, that the hon. member for Yorkshire had taken upon him to lecture that side of the House; in the last parliament that hon. member was in the habit of giving good advice to the ministers. He for one, should always be glad to listen to the hon. gentleman's admonitions; but in the present instance he had mis-stated the facts and mistaken the inferences to be drawn from them. The number of the members who balloted was 200, and of these 175 had put in the treasury lists unaltered. But this was not all, for it was well known that there was a corps de reserve available for the purposes of the minister. It had been well observed by the right hon. the member for Liverpool, that it was peculiarly desirable to have this committee composed of all the talents in the House most competent to judge of the important subject referred to it, and as the talents of his hon. and learned friend, to whom the motion referred, were quite unquestionable, he lamented the absence of that right hon. gentleman upon this occasion, because, if present, he must calculate in consistency upon that right hon. gentleman's support of the motion. Mr. Alderman Waithman said, that if the object of gentlemen were a full and fair inquiry, he could not see why they should oppose the present motion. He did not see why they should object to the name of Mr. Brougham, a gentleman possessing talents of the highest order, and knowledge of great extent. Whatever gentlemen might say in that House, by whatever pretext they might labour to get rid of such a man, the country at large would say, that this committee of inquiry was but a committee to suppress real inquiry. He said, he would ever oppose the appointment of a committee by ballot, because he considered it an improper mode of selecting a committee; it had indeed been made a joke of; it had afforded infinite amusement to the other side of the House, but he considered it a grave and important matter, and gentlemen who treated it with levity, who called it a joke, showed very little respect for public opinion. He could not think that the House would perform its duty, even if precedent were against the present motion, if they excluded Mr. Brougham (VOL. XXXIX.) from the committee. Precedent should not be attended to where precedent might be mischievous. It might happen, that a particular individual, on a particular occasion, might be better qualified to actmight have more capability and information-than all the persons on the committee put together; it might happen that such a man might, by chance, or by design be excluded: in such a case, he would ask, was the House, was the country to be shut out from all the information such an individual could afford on a mere matter of punctilio? But as far as precedents went, it was stated that they were in favour of the nomination. For his part, he did not conceive that the mode adopted was the way to promote a full and complete inquiry: he for one, had o expectation from the investigation. Though he had not the honour of a seat in the House before, yet he had not been inattentive to its proceedings. He had heard enough-the country had heard enough of secret committees-they had heard enough of the old jokes of the balloting system-they had heard enough of the green bag committees, to hope for any useful result. The fair intention of the balloting system was, he said, to have the members of committees appointed unbiassed and impartial. Time, however, had perverted it, and experience showed that it was a system that should not be upheld, but ought, on every constitutional and honest principle, to be immediately abandoned. For himself, he strongly deprecated the rejection of the hon. and learned member. He spoke from feeling, and the sudden but strong impulse of feeling, convinced that the country would be universally dissatisfied if the hon. and learned member alluded to was not placed upon this committee. Mr. Wynn observed, that with respect to the system of ballot, he differed from the worthy alderman, as well as from other members; for it appeared to him quite indifferent whether a committee were appointed by ballot or by nomination, because the opinion of the majority must have the same influence in either case, with this consideration, however, in favour of the ballot, that gentlemen had an opportunity, through that system, of expressing their real sentiment, without offending against prejudice or partiality. He would most decidedly object to the system by ballot, if, as some gentlemen seemed to suppose, it served to fetter the (2A) discretion of the House; but no such fettering could be seriously apprehended, because, whatever lists might be circulated, every member had still an option to vote for any gentleman whose name might be inserted, or to nominate another in his stead. But with respect to the motion before the House, it was, he must say, very incorrectly resisted upon the ground of precedent; for so far from its being contrary to precedent to add any member to a balloted committee, the cases were numerous where members were added to committees after their appointment. It frequently occurred so where members were out of parliament at the time of the appointment of the committee, and whose knowledge and labours were most desirable; many instances could be stated where members were thus appointed. This had been the case in the year 1715, when three members were subsequently appointed on such a committee. In 1773, Mr. Jenkinson, Mr. Langley, and Mr. Hopkins, were appointed in a similar way. In 1781, lord Graham had in like manner been introduced. There was, therefore, no question as to the propriety of this proposition on the score of precedent. The only question then was, whether the appointment of the hon. and learned gentleman to whom the motion referred would conduce to the object of the committee? In considering this question, it was clear that there could be no difference of opinion as to that hon. and learned gentleman's knowledge of political economy, while his assiduity and diligence were proverbial; and, therefore, thinking that such a member would be a most useful acquisition to the committee, he felt it his duty to vote for the motion. man. | hon. and learned gentleman referred to, save only this, that he fully concurred in all that had been urged in the way of panegyric upon the great talents and atfainments of that hon, and learned gentleBut still he objected to the propo sition for adding that hon. and learned gentleman to the committee alluded to, for he felt that such addition would be contrary to precedent. He believed there was no instance upon record of such addi. tion to a committee already formed, unless with regard to some member, who might not have been in the House at the time of its formation, or whose peculiar qualifica tions might not have become known to the House until after the ballot. But neither was the case in the present instance, for the hon. and learned gentleman was a member, and perfectly well known to the House at the time the ballot took place. Yet the hon. and learned gentleman was not among the number chosen by that ballot, and therefore he could see no adequate reason for this proposal to proceed to a second election, upon the grounds stated by, the worthy alderman and others. Upon those grounds he felt himself called upon to oppose the proposition for opening the committee, being fully persuaded, that if the addition now required were acceded to, it would not be the only one pressed upon the consideration of the House. Mr. Wynn rose to say a few words, rendered, in his mind, necessary from the speech of the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down. The precedents he had alluded to before were precedents exactly in point, not precedents that fell under the description of those relied on by the right hon. member. He would men tion the case of lord Finch and the chancellor of the exchequer, who, in 1715, names of Mr. Jenkinson (the late lord Liverpool), Mr. Langley, and Mr. Hopkinson, were added to a committee of that House. In 1781 the name of lord Graham was added to a committee of that House. He would only say, that these gentlemen were all members of the House at the time the committees had been originally appointed, and this, he trusted, would be a sufficient answer to the ground of objection relied on by the right hon. gentleman. Mr. Canning said, that as his observations on a former evening had been alluded to in his absence, which allusion, by-the-were added to a committee. In 1773 the by, he could not help thinking rather inconsistent with the usual courtesy of the House, he felt it necessary to say a word or two upon the motion. What he had stated upon the subject of the system of ballot, in comparison with the proposal of nomination, was this, that the former afforded gentlemen a full opportunity of expressing their opinions, without stating their grounds of objection or preference towards any individual. It was upon this ground, distinctly, that he preferred the system of ballot. Now with respect to the motion before the House, he would abstain from saying any thing about the Mr. Barham said, he was particularly desirous that the arguments of the hon. member for Yorkshire should not pass |