HC Deb 24 April 1885 vol 297 cc780-92

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Select Committee on Industries (Ireland) do consist of Twenty-four Members."—(Sir Eardley Wilmot.)

MR. PARNELL

said, he was sorry that the Government had adopted such an extraordinary course in reference to the nomination of this Committee as that which they had adopted. It was towards the end of last Session that the Government agreed to the appointment of such a Committee upon the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot), who had now moved its nomination; and upon one pretext or another they had delayed, since the commencement of the Session, the nomination of the Committee, and refused the just claim of the Members with whom he (Mr. Parnell) was associated for representation upon the Committee. He and his hon. Friends considered that a Committee embracing such a very wide field of investigation as that connected with the industrial resources of Ireland should have upon it a sufficiently strong force of Members belonging to the Irish Nationalist Party as to have enabled them to take a leading share in its deliberations. He admitted to the fullest extent that if the Committee were suitably constituted, and if it had time to pursue its investigations thoroughly, they would be of enormous value, and would result in the obtaining of very much valuable information as regarded the industrial resources of Ireland. But he should look upon an incomplete investigation as a great disaster. In the first place, if the Committee reported that Session, and he had no doubt it would report, if nominated, because if it had not completed its investigation by the close of the Session, it could not claim, from an expiring Parliament, its reappointment the following Session—if the Committee were to make a Report by the close of the Session, it could not be anything but a very incomplete and imperfect Report.

MR. MONK

rose to Order. The House had already decided, on the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot), that this Committee should be appointed. The Question now put to the House was that the Select Committee do consist of 21 Members. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) seemed to be going a little beyond the Question.

MR. SPEAKER

I have not put the first name of the hon. Members who it is proposed should form the Select Committee; and therefore the wider question is still before the House on the Question that the Select Committee do consist of such and such Members.

MR. PARNELL

said, he should endeavour to confine his remarks as much as he possibly could to the immediate Question before the House. Of course, he did not desire to detain the House unnecessarily at that time of the night (12.45). Apart from the question of the probable incomplete nature of the Committee's Report, owing to the fact that so little time of the Session still remained to investigate such a wide subject, he wished to say that he certainty should not like to undertake the responsibility of being a Member of the Committee with only four Colleagues to assist him in overcoming the opposition of 19 English Members, which would almost certainly be exhibited against any proposal of theirs tending to make the operation of the Committee an effective one. If the Irish Party had such a number of Members on the Committee as would be likely to give them their suitable share in directing the issues to which the Committee might come the case would be different. But it was only proposed that the Committee should consist of 24 Members. Of that number the Irish Party were only to be given live. The Committee was, he understood, to consist of 10 Liberal Members, nine Conservative Members, and five Members belonging to the Irish Party. That would leave only five Members of the Irish Party against 19 other Members of the House; and his experience of the working of other Select Committees was that it would be exceedingly difficult for the five, under the circumstances, hampered as the Committee would be by the short period of the Session still remaining, to obtain from the majority of the Committee such a full discussion of the subject, and such a full examination of the subject, as would be satisfactory, or as would render the proceedings of the Committee of any importance or value whatever towards the promotion of the industrial resources of Ireland. He said that, having some knowledge himself of the difficulties which Irish Members had to contend against in Committees of this kind. The difficulties were very much enhanced when there were only a few Irish Members endeavouring to press their views and ideas upon a large number of Members belonging to the two English Parties. The work then became insuperable, and he doubted very much whether, at that period of the Session, the trouble which would be entailed upon the Committee would be justified at all by the results which would attend its labours. He, for his own part, should feel obliged to decline the honour of nomination to the Committee, because he felt he could not be of any real use with regard to the very important object with which the Committee would meet. He therefore asked the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) to consider whether he was really likely to advance the cause of the industrial resources of Ireland by persevering with a Committee from which no good could come? He had always recognized the desire of the hon. Baronet to promote the industries of Ireland. The hon. Baronet's name was distinguished in connection with that matter, and he (Mr. Parnell) was quite ready to acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman was anxious that some of the misery which prevailed in Ireland should cease. Undoubtedly, if the hon. Gentleman could obtain the appointment of the Committee at an earlier period of the Session, and if it were suitably composed, the Committee might do a very considerable amount of good towards disseminating information with regard to important branches of Irish industries. Under the circumstances, he (Mr. Parnell) thought it would hardly be possible for the hon. Baronet, by this Committee, to do much good that Session. They had been treated very unfairly by the Government in this matter. Originally the Government offered them four Members, and, after considerable hesitation, they offered them five. The original claim of the Irish Representatives was that they should have six Members upon the Committee—a very fair claim indeed, and one which he should have thought the Government would have had no difficulty in agreeing to, if they really desired to promote the success of the Committee. Even if they could now obtain six Representatives on the Committee, he doubted whether the appointment of the Committee would be of much value, seeing that such a very short period must elapse before the Session would come to an end. It was obvious that once the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill and the Registration Bills had passed, the Session would come to a speedy conclusion. He thought that, as business men, they were entitled to consider whether they ought to proceed with a hasty and limited inquiry from which no good result could come. He therefore begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

MR. MOLLOY

seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Parnell.)

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he thought it was necessary he should say a word or two with respect to the position of the Government in this matter. He was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) say that it was proposed to appoint upon this Committee 19 English Members.

MR. PARNELL

Nineteen Members of the two English Parties.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

English Parties! There were 12 Irish Members out of the 24, besides the Chairman of the Committee. Now, what was this Committee? It was a Committee to inquire into the industrial resources of Ireland; and would the hon. Member for the City of Cork exclude from the Committee every Irish Member returned by an Irish constituency who did not belong to his Party? Did the hon. Member mean to say that upon a Committee of Inquiry into the Industrial Resources of Ireland the hon. Members for Belfast, for instance, were not to be nominated, but were to be treated as English Members? Really, the whole argument of the hon. Gentleman was to deny the right of any Member elected by an Irish constituency to be regarded as an Irish Member unless he belonged to his (Mr. Parnell's) Party. ["Oh, oh!"] What else, then, was the hon. Member's argument? Why, then, did he complain if there were 12 Members, who belonged to different Parties, and who sat in diffeernt parts of the House, but all of whom were elected by Irish constituencies, to sit upon a Committee of this description? It seemed to him (Sir William Harcourt) that the argument of the hon. Member was one which could not be sustained. If what he had stated was not the hon. Gentleman's argument, what was it? The hon. Member had said that the 19 Members belonged to the two English Parties, and he said that there were only five Members of the Committee who could be recognized as Irish Members. Did he repudiate the Members for Belfast and the Members for Dublin—Members who certainly had something to say on such a subject? That was all it seemed to him (Sir William Harcourt) necessary to say in vindication of the fairness with which this Committee had been constituted. The Irish Members of the Committee and the Chairman of the Committee constituted together the majority, and therefore the assertion that the Committee had been unfairly constituted could not be sustained. The hon. Member had stated that the Session was so far advanced that it was not likely that the Committee would answer any useful purpose. That, of course, was an argument which stood on a very different fooling. It was an argument which the hon. Gentleman must settle with the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) who moved the Committee. He (Sir William Harcourt) only rose to repudiate, on the part of the Government, the assertion that the Committee had been unfairly selected. He thought that anybody who looked at the names of the Committee would see at once that the various sections of the Irish Members were very fairly represented.

SIR EARDLEY WILMOT

said, he begged to thank the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) for the kind manner in which he had alluded to himself. He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) could only say that he had only one object in endeavouring to get this Committee before the House—the same object which had induced him, at a late period of his life, to undergo the toil and labour of Parliamentary work. He had found for a long period that Ireland was part of the United Kingdom to which adequate justice had not been done; and, therefore, with that feeling he had sought a seat in that House, and, as the hon. Member had said, he had on many occasions shown his anxiety to serve the interests of that country. Entertaining these feelings, in the month of August last he had put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, asking him whether he would consent to the appointment of a Royal Commission for the purpose of inquiring into the industrial resources of Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, had stated that he had conferred on this matter with the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and that they were both of opinion that the object he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) wished to attain would be better arrived at through the medium of a Select Committee than that of a Royal Commission. Upon that he Sir Eardley Wilmot) had immediately given Notice of his intention to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the industrial resources of Ireland. That, as he had said, was in August last. He had brought the matter forward at such a period that no opportunity presented itself for bringing the question to a conclusion. In the Autumn Session, having given Notice on the 21st of November last, he brought the question before the House, and asked for a Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government was present and had listened to his speech, and at his side was the then Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan). Alter they had heard what he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had to say, and had heard the arguments put to the House by the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Moore) and many Gentleman on the Opposition side of the House below the Gangway—indeed, from hon. Members on both sides of the House—the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster rose to inform him (Sir Eardley Wilmot) that at that period of the Session it was useless to suppose the matter could be thoroughly gone into; but that if at the beginning of the present Session he would renew his question the matter would be favourably considered. Accordingly, on the 10th of March, having given due Notice through the hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons), he himself having been out of England, the matter came on. On that evening he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had an interview with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, who had not only always treated him, but the subject that he had in hand, with the greatest courtesy and consideration, and the right hon. Gentleman had told him that the Government had consented to the appointment of a Committee. The Committee was assented to on that evening, and he had set about preparing a list of names for the consideration of the Government. He did not hesitate to say that he had included in that list a greater number of Members of the National Party than were now to be found upon it. He had thought that, upon the whole, that Party represented, as he considered it did, the great majority of the people of Ireland, and the feeling and sentiments and wishes of the people of Ireland ought to be considered, and that the number of seven—the Committee at that time consisting of 21 Members—would not be too large for the representation of that Party. He wished to return, on this the first opportunity, his best thanks to the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor) for the uniform kindness and courtesy with which he had on every occasion assisted him and conferred with him with regard to the appointment of the Committee, the names of the proposed Members of which were now before the House. There had been great difficulties for the noble Lord to overcome no doubt—difficulties which hon. Gentlemen sitting on both sides of the House could well understand; but ultimately, only a short time ago, the noble Lord had told him that the names had been agreed upon. They were those now on the Paper, with the exception of three, who had only been aided to the list within the last few days. Two of those names were such as would do honour to any Committee, he did not care how important it might be. He referred to the names of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith)—a Cabinet Minister and an ex-Cabinet Minister headed the list of this important Committee. In addition to those, the name of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) was added to the list. He must say he quite dissented from what had been said by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), that this was a Committee that. would not do justice to Ireland. As the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) had said, the number of Irishmen—

MR. SPEAKER

I must remind the hon. Baronet that the Question before the House is the adjournment of the debate.

SIR EARDLEY WILMOT

said, he found it rather difficult to confine himself to the Question of adjournment when the whole matter had been so thoroughly dealt with by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, who had gone into the whole history of the question, and thus he had found it difficult to abstain from general remarks. But he respectfully be wed to the decision of Mr. Speaker, and he would confine himself entirely to the reasons why the debate should not be adjourned. They had before them now three good hard-working months, up to the end of July; and he must say that he had received from every part of Ireland a universal expression of a desire that they should commence the inquiry. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for the City of Cork that they could not exhaust such a vast question as this that Session; but, at any rate, let them commence the inquiry. There were Gentlemen in the House who were ready to devote all their time and labour to the prosecution of an inquiry fur the purpose of benefiting the Sister Kingdom; and he really was surprised at the observations which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork, that owing to want of time and to the near approach of the end of the Parliament that the inquiry would be altogether useless. He could tell the hon. Member that if the House granted the inquiry, Ireland would never allow so distinguished a Member of the House and so distinguished an Irishman to stay away from it. Looking at the magnitude and importance of the inquiry, Irishmen would not consent to the hon. Member holding aloof from it, so well knowing, as they did, that his opinions, his feelings, and his influence with his fellow-countrymen would be of so vast an amount of assistance to the Committee, and would do so much good. Therefore, if the Committee were granted, he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) did not feel any apprehension in his own mind that either the hon. Member for the City of Cork, or those hon. Gentle- men of the Nationalist Party whom he proposed to nominate with him, would abstain from taking any part in the inquiry. He respectfully asked the House not to agree to this adjournment, after all the labour and anxiety he and his Friends had had in endeavouring to put the Committee on foot; he asked the House to give him an opportunity of going to work at once. He saw the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) in his place, and knew how glad he always was to embark in any Parliamentary work when his opinion and service might be beneficial to his country. He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) might disagree with the right hon. Gentleman as to the fundamental principles on which his (Sir Charles W. Dilke's) labours were founded; but he cordially paid a tribute of admiration and respect to the energy, and zeal, and great talent which the right hon. Gentleman had displayed in piloting the Bill for the redistribution of seats through the House. As a private Member, he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) was in a similar, though lesser degree, anxious to devote what strength and power he had to a work which he firmly believed would benefit the country of hon. Gentlemen who sat on his right. Let him have the opportunity he sought, and he thought he would be able to prosecute the undertaking in such a manner that neither the House nor the country would have reason to regret it.

MR. ONSLOW

wished to say a word on this subject, for the reason that on Wednesday last he had prevented the nomination of the Committee. Everything, he thought, which had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for South Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot) that night only confirmed him in the action he had taken on Wednesday. The hon. Member (Mr. Parnell), in suggesting the adjournment of the debate, said he did not think a Committee would be of any use, or that its labours could be brought to a termination that Session. He (Mr. Onslow) knew very well the great importance of the Committee, and it was for that reason that he should support the hon. Member for the City of Cork if he went to a division. He (Mr. Onslow) had had great experience in connection with those large Committees, and he knew the larger the Committee was the more time would it require to go into all the matters brought before it. It appeared to him to be an absolute farce on the part of the House to appoint a Committee of that kind at that period of the Session, when the interest of every Member was concentrated upon the next Election. There was another objection he had to raise against the appointment of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) was rather in favour of the appointment of the Committee; but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, during his whole experience, he had ever known a Committee appointed with only nine of one Party upon it and 15 of another. That was a mode of procedure which, at any rate so far as he was concerned, he had never known before. The light hon. Gentleman had alluded to it, and though he did not wish to be out of Order—

MR. SPEAKER

I must remind the hon. Member that he is not speaking to the Question of the adjournment of the debate.

MR. ONSLOW

said, he was merely replying to the observation of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not see why the Committee should not be appointed, because everyone knew who the Chairman was to be. Well, it was the first time he (Mr. Onslow) had ever known the Chairman mentioned before the Committee met. If anyone was to be appointed by the Government, or by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, before the Committee met, he was afraid they would be forming a very bad precedent. He thought this would be a wholly useless Committee, so far as the present Session was concerned. The subject was a vast one, and a Committee to properly consider it would have to sit at least two years. It was, therefore, an idle thing to agree to its appointment at that period. The hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had said there were two Members on the Committee he was proud of. Undoubtedly. The names were "Mr. Trevelyan" and "Mr. W. H. Smith." It was only within the last few days that those Gentlemen had consented to serve on the Committee; and it seemed to him (Mr. Onslow) that they had only consented to serve in order to give a colour to this matter. Pressure had been brought to bear upon them to grant the use of their names, and he did not think that was the sort of thing that ought to take place in that House. He deprecated the nomination of the Committee at the present time, and should accordingly support the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell).

DR. LYONS

said, the House, he hoped, would support the action of the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) in nominating this Committee without delay. He (Dr. Lyons) could testify there was great anxiety throughout the length and breadth of Ireland for the appointment of the Committee, and that there would be great disappointment if it were postponed any longer. He might be allowed to mention, as a reason for not postponing it, that a very considerable number of persons had been communicated with with a view of receiving their evidence—gentlemen eminent in science and practical arts in Ireland. Although the Committee had not yet been appointed, an expectation had existed which had been operating in Ireland for the last six or eight months; and gentlemen of the greatest experience had been preparing evidence, and making inquiries, and taking notes, with a view of giving the Committee the benefit of their knowledge on the subject. Special inquiries had been prosecuted during the whole of the winter; and not only had the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) been in active correspondence with gentlemen connected with manufactures, with science, and with art in Ireland, but he (Dr. Lyons) himself had been in constant communication with all those gentlemen in Ireland. Therefore, the work of the Committee was prepared, and if it were now appointed it would be able at once, without further delay, to take valuable evidence. As he had already said, immense disappointment would undoubtedly result from further delay. He regretted that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had chosen to take his present action, because he believed that the hon. Member and his Friends could, if they liked, lend very important assistance to the Committee. The House would be able to judge from the number and character of those who were prepared to give evidence rather than from the constitution of the Committee, that he did not underrate the importance of the inquiry, and the necessity of its being a representative Committee. An endeavour had been made to make it as widely representative as possible, and he thought the nomination in the proposal before the House was a fair one. He believed for all those reasons the House would support the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot).

MR. R. POWER

said, he agreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down (Dr. Lyons) that the Irish Members and the Irish people ought to be indebted to the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) for the interest he had taken in this subject. Not only ought they to feel indebted to him, but they did feel indebted to him; but, at the same time, he believed at that period of the Session it was too late to commence the inquiry, particularly in view of the statement of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that so many important witnesses would have to be examined. It had been said, and no doubt with truth, that the inquiry would be of such an important and exhaustive nature that it would occupy fully two years, possibly three. Then, when they looked at the list of Members to be nominated on the Committee, they could not but remember that a General Election was very likely to take place before the end of next Session, and that some of those hon. Members, whose names were down, were not likely to be again returned to the House of Commons. Of course, he did not refer to the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken (Dr. Lyons); but still it would be very inconvenient if Members who had sat upon the Committee and had listened to the evidence, and were familiar with the inquiry from the commencement, were to be replaced by others who would come upon the inquiry in the middle of the evidence. In that way it might be necessary to go over the whole ground again. He really thought that taking into consideration the late period of the Session, and the importance of the subject, and the number of witnesses that would have to be examined, that it would be better to wait until next Session and the new Parliament was elected, and they knew what Members were likely to serve upon the Committee from beginning to end before they made the appointment. Under all those circumstances, he felt bound to support the Motion of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell).

MR. SEXTON

said, there could be but one opinion as to the public spirit and energy displayed in this matter by the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot); but if anything was required to complete the argument of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), it was supplied by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Dr. Lyons). That hon. Member, it appeared, had taken time by the forelock, and before the Committee was appointed had written to important personages in Ireland with a view of securing them as witnesses. The hon. Member had secured them for the inquiry, although he himself was not yet connected with it, and, as a matter of fact, was never likely to be connected with it. Even if the Committee were appointed, and the hon. Member were to bring over those witnesses, a considerable number of them would have to remain unexamined until next Session. It must be remembered that they had now reached the month of April, and that the Session was not likely to last as long as ordinary Sessions. The appointment of the Committee should be put off until next Session, as it was necessary that there should be continuity of action with regard to it. If it were not put off the inquiry would be finished by a personnel different to that which commenced it; and, to his mind, it seemed desirable that they should have the same Members upon it throughout. By next Session the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) would have received ample response. The right hon. Gentleman did not know who was "the Party representing Ireland" in the House; next Session he was likely to have as much proof as he could desire on that point. He was in favour of the postponement proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), because he believed that if the Committee were appointed now it would go into action doomed to failure. At any rate, if it were proceeded with he should respectfully desire to withdraw his name from it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Debate adjourned till Monday next.