KAFFIR TRIBES COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 8 May 1851)

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
moved the appointment of the Members of the Select Committee on the relations of the Kaffir Tribes with this country.

§ COLONEL DUNNE
complained that there was not a single Irish Member named on the Committee. Irishmen were excluded, indeed, from almost all Committees, as if they were not subjects of the United Kingdom, and he held that it was exceedingly unfair that it should be so. The Irish Members ought to be invited as well as others to take a part in the general businiss of the country. He would protest againt the appointment of this Committee.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
could say that it was quite unintentional on his part to 733 omit Irish Members from the Committee, and it was not till that morning that his attention had been directed to the subject. Nor did he think there was any ground for the charge that they were systematically excluded from Committees. But the other day a Motion was made to add an Irish Gentleman to a Committee, and that Motion was at once acceded to. If the hon. and gallant Colonel was willing to serve on the present Committee, he, for one, would be very willing to have his name substituted for that of Admiral Dundas.

§ MR. HOBHOUSE
considered that the practice of the House, as regarded the appointment of Public Committees, was the most inequitable and unjust that had ever been recognised in any legislative assembly; and he was prepared, if no other Member did, to bring the question before the House. He pledged himself that if no other Member mooted the subject, he would do so, if not during the present, at least in the next Session of Parliament, The whole system of appointing these Committees was devised in a manner calculated to mislead the country. He believed that the names proposed for Committees were arranged by a certain number of Gentlemen on both sides, over the table of the House, who compared lists together. After a comparison of the lists, he believed that they were submitted for the approval of those who were called the leading Members of the House. From Committees thus constituted, some of the best, ablest, and most enlightened Members of the House were excluded. It had often been his intention to call the notice of the House to this subject; and he would now take the liberty to put the question in the form of a dilemma. When a Member of Parliament was not called to serve on Committees, was it regarded as an exemption or an exclusion? If it were an exemption, he was surprised to find young and rising men of talent, such as the hon. Members for Leominster (Mr. F. Peel), and King's Lynn (Mr. E. Stanley), and other Gentlemen he could name, in the position of Committee-men. If, on the other hand, it was an exclusion, and he had no doubt it was so considered, nothing could be more partial or unfair. Some hundred Members of that House were supposed to be ubiquitous, and were appointed to almost all Committees. This was a great constitutional question—one for the solemn and serious consideration of Parlia- 734 ment. He had been a Member of that House for seven or eight years—one Parliament intervening—and he did not consider himself inferior to some who were placed upon Committees. Serving upon a Committee was a valuable apprenticeship; information was obtained, experience afforded, useful habits contracted, and, he might add, means of winning popularity attained. [A laugh.] Yes, with all due respect to the House, he would maintain that serving on Committees gave the means of acquiring popularity; as when, for instance, a Member was enabled to tell his constituents that he had assisted in abolishing the office of Master of the Mint, or in reducing the salaries of Lords of the Treasury. One hon. Gentleman was placed upon a most important Committee, because he was connected with what was termed the leading journal of Europe. They often found Gentlemen, indeed, who had not yet displayed any particular talent or ability, or attained any considerable position in the House, employed on these Committees, and then they were enabled to go down to their constituents and say—"See what I have done; I have been the means of reducing these salaries, and abolishing these places;" thus obtaining a popularity from which other Members were excluded. He would not say those hon. Gentlemen were not possessed of great abilities, and were not perfectly qualified to serve with efficiency; but they had not manifested their powers to the House. Committees had of late absorbed many of the functions which Government had virtually abrogated. The Government had absolved themselves from responsibility and fallen back upon Committees. The Government had been, to a great extent, put in commission. He must protest that, if the noble Lord—of whom he always wished to speak with respeet—thus delegated to Committees the initiation of measures; that, if this course were persevered in, common justice demanded a less exclusive arrangement; and he thought that the House might be obliged to adopt the French system of dividing themselves into bureaux. He was willing and ready to serve in Committees, though not peculiarly desirous of the appointment; on the contrary, he was glad to have time to enjoy the recreations of leisure, but he was decidedly opposed to this exclusive, unfair, and partial system, which was not constitutional, and ought to be abolished. If the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington brought forward a Motion on this 735 subject, he would support him; if not, he would bring it forward himself. He objected in toto to the mode of settling every thing across the table of the House. If the system of Prance were adopted in one respect, namely, deputing the powers and functions of the Government to Committees, why not adopt it in another, and divide the House into bureaux, which would prevent exclusion?

§ MR. REYNOLDS
said, the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington had asked the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) a question which the noble Lord had not answered. There were fifteen Members on the Committee, not one of whom was Irish. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Dunne) asked the noble Lord whether Ireland really was a portion of the United Kingdom? The answer given by the noble Lord was rather Irish, for the noble Lord said he had never thought upon the subject until this morning. Whether this morning meant a quarter of an hour ago (it was then half-past twelve), or a quarter-past twelve yesterday, he could not tell. The noble Lord seemed disposed to supersede Admiral Dundas; but he (Mr. Reynolds) had no disposition to supersede the gallant Admiral. But what they complained of was, that out of a Committee of fifteen Members—appointed upon a most important subject—the Kaffir war, there was not a single Irishman. [Laughter.] They might laugh; but if there had been no Irishman at the Cape of Good Hope, there would have been a short account of British power there. Yes, if a gallant Irishman did not command there, British power would have sustained a shock which it would not easily have recovered. According to the constitution of the House, there ought at least to have been three Irish Members on the Kaffir Committee. The present system was certainly a most unfair one. On a recent occasion the right hon. Secretary for Ireland (Sir William Somerville), had caused his (Mr. Reynolds') name to be struck off a Committee, and so anxious was that Gentleman to keep him off, that he procured the attendance of three Cabinet Ministers, and a large number of hangers-on. He would not say the Committee was packed—that would he offensive, unparliamentary—he would merely say that it had been selected. The noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had thought it worth while to come down to vote against him (Mr. Reynolds) being on that Committee, which 736 was on a local subject—a very proper return, he must own, for his having, at some inconvenience, come to vote in support of the noble Lord in the famous case of Don Pacifieo versus Palmerston. Upon another occasion the right hon. Secretary for Ireland had contrived to supersede his Colleague and himself in a matter in which the city they represented was especially interested.

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Hobhouse) was mistaken in stating that the hon. Members for Leominster and King's Lynn had not been placed upon Committees. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. F. Peel) had served last Session upon the Attorney General's Committee on the Bankruptcy Laws.

§ MR. HOBHOUSE
explained that what he had said was, that the omission of a Member's name from a Committee could not be considered an exemption, because such rising and able Members as the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. E. Stanley), and the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. F. Peel) were placed upon Committees.

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
would not say a word more on that subject, as he had misunderstood the hon. Member; but with regard to Ireland he could say, that for the last four or five weeks hardly one Committee had been appointed which had not one or two Irish Members upon it.

§ MR. KEOGH
said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had observed that it was necessary to look to facts, although he abandoned his facts the same moment that he referred to them. Now, he wished to call the attention of the House to facts. The objection of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne) was, that no Irishman had been appointed to the Kaffir Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that there is not a single case of a Committee being appointed on which there is not an Irishman. But here is one—the present case is one in point against the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Kin-sale (Mr. Hawes) was certainly an Irish Member, but he did not think of putting forth such an argument against the charge; for he admitted that it was not in that character the hon. Gentleman was to serve on the Committee, but merely as the representative of the Colonial Department. 737 He (Mr. Keogh) was sure that the hon. Member for Kinsale would recollect that this question was brought before the House last Session—and what were the facts? Why, that on twenty-one Committees which had been appointed, not one single Irishman had been selected. So much for the facts of the right hon. Gentleman. But let them look at the constitution of the Committee. It was an unfair Committee, an inequitable Committee, and that quite apart and on different grounds from the exclusion of Irishmen. It was an unfair Committee to inquire into this question of the Kaffir tribes. He would go through the Committee seriatim. First, there was the right hon. Secretary at War; of course he represented his department. Then there was the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Granby); no one could object to him. Then there was the hon. Member for South Essex (Sir Edward Buxton) who represented, he should suppose, the aborigines. Then there was the hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. E. Stanley), whose great knowledge and experience, and the attention which he had devoted to colonial subjects, well fitted him to serve as a Member. Then there was the hon. Member (Colonel Thompson) who represented Bradford and the Reform Association. Then there was the hon. Member for Lymington (Mr. Mackinnon) very much connected with the interest of smoke in that House, and who at all events had a relative commanding a beleaguered fort in that part of the world. ["Oh, oh!"] Why, that is the reason the Government have selected him. The right hon. Secretary at War need not shake his head; a Member of the Government not half an hour ago gave it as the reason. Then there is the hon. Member for Bolton (Sir Joshua Walmsley) who represents financial reform; and then there was the hon. Gentleman who represented the Colonial department (Mr. Hawes). Why, there is not a single Irishman on the Committee; and the exclusion is not an accident, but is part of a system. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer says it is perfectly absurd to say, that they kept Irish Members from serving on Committees, and instanced that they were most desirous to have an Irish Member to serve upon the Customs. And whom did they select? Why, a Gentleman who had announced in every paper in the kingdom his intention of resigning, and who only delayed 738 to do so that he might witness the final and the complete overthrow of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. He alluded to Mr. Eagan. This was the Gentleman they had chosen; and upon his resignation whom did they select? Why, the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Tennent), whose ill health or some other cause would render him not a very constant attendant in the House. Now, keeping these facts in mind, he must say this exclusion was universal, and that he believed it was systematically designed. Believing this, he would join his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Dunne) in opposing the Committee.

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the Gentleman who had been selected in the room of Mr. Fagan was Mr. Tennent, Member for one of the largest and most prosperous towns in Ireland, Belfast.

§ MR. SADLEIR
had no doubt whatever that the exclusion of Irish Members was systematic, and he could not forget that there was not a single Irish Member on the Committee or the Commission appointed to inquire as to the best Transatlantic station.

§ COLONEL DUNNE
moved the postponement of the Committee.

§ MR. HOBHOUSE
seconded the Motion.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, that he had not the least objection to any number of Irish Gentlemen serving on the Committee; and as the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Reynolds) said that he thought three would be a fair proportion, he was willing that the Committee should consist of seventeen Members, and that the name of Admiral Dundas should be omitted. If the hon. Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh) would allow the nomination of the Committee to proceed now, he (Lord John Russell) would upon Monday propose the names of three Irish Members.

§ MR. KEOGH
would oppose the nomination until he knew the names of the Irish Members. He protested against the Committee altogether. He would, therefore, support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

§ MR. HUME
appealed to the hon. Member not to persist in his opposition, after the concession of the noble Lord at the head of the Government.

§ COLONEL DUNNE
was satisfied with the proposition of the Government, and en- 739 treated his hon. Friend to forego his opposition.

§ MR. SADLEIR
saw no inconvenience arising from the postponement of the question. They had not raised it for the mere purpose of a profitless discussion.

§ LORD NAAS
entreated his hon. Friend to give way. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had conceded all that was demanded.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, that if he postponed the Committee until Monday, he had no guarantee that the hon. Member would be more reasonable upon that day.

§ MR. BRIGHT
was not aware that the Irish Members had suffered, or that even any question had suffered, by the exclusion of Irish Members from a Committee, because he agreed very much with the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Hobhouse) that Committees were chosen in a very unsatisfactory manner, and that nine out of ten were nothing but a sham. He was glad the question had been brought forward by the hon. Gentleman behind him; and he hoped that in future the Irish Members would take a greater part in Committee work, and that there would be no cause to complain that they did not attend as well as English Members. The noble Lord at the head of the Government having consented to add the names of three Irish Members, in common fairness he trusted the hon. Member (Mr. Keogh) would not mar the effect of that which had been done, by insisting that the Committee should not be appointed to-night.

§ MR. KEOGH
could not defer to the advice of the hon. Member for Manchester; and he hoped the friendly sneer directed to Irishmen would be remembered not only by Irish Members in the House, but by Irishmen out of doors, and that might be important to the hon. Gentleman. It was very unpleasant to object to the name of any Gentleman, particularly the name of any Member from his part of the country; and, therefore, he must persevere, at the risk of incensing the hon. Member for Manchester, in objecting to the appointment of a portion of the Committee until it could be appointed as a whole.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, it was entirely a mistake if it was thought he intended a sneer on Irish Members. No one had paid more attention or taken more interest than he had in Irish business; but this was a very dull place, and it was a common thing, if a double meaning could be at- 740 tached, to raise a laugh and convey a meaning different to that intended.