THE SELECT COMMITTEE—PACKET AND TELEGRAPHIC CONTRACTS. (Hansard, 15 July 1859)

§ MR. BUTT
(who had on the paper a Motion that this Committee do consist of twenty-one Members, and that Sir E. Grogan and Lord John Browne be added thereto,) said, he shared in the feelings of many Irish Members that generally, in the nomination of Committees in this House, Irishmen were not fairly represented. The Galway contract excited strong interest in Ireland and it was hardly fair that two Irish Members only, and they ex-officials, should be appointed to serve upon it. He begged, therefore, to move the increase of the Committee from nineteen to twenty-one Members.

§ MR. HENNESSY
seconded the Motion.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he regretted that he could not accede to this proposition. He had on a former occasion stated that no jealousy existed on the part of the House as to the representation of Irish Members upon Committees. In this instance his hon. Friend could not get rid of the idea of the Galway contract, but, although that might of itself have rendered inquiry necessary, an investigation must equally have taken place into the whole subject of such contracts even if the Galway case had never arisen, and six years ago the necessity of instituting such an inquiry was recognized. The effect of the Motion would be to place on the Committee two Gentlemen pledged beforehand to support the Galway contract. Now, there were already four Gentlemen on the Committee who, as Members of the late Government, would avowedly sit there as defenders of that contract, and the public jealousy would be justly aroused if they tampered any further with the constitution of the Committee. There was a direct objection moreover to one of the names proposed—Lord John Browne—as he was connected with the locality, and the Government had studiously avoided any selection of Gentlemen who might be supposed to have a local bias. All the Members of the late Government were Irish Members for the purposes of the Galway contract, and if they were disposed to make two seats over to his hon. Friend the Government would have no objection.

§ LORD JOHN BROWNE
said, he was not aware it was intended to propose his name. He admitted he was as much prejudiced one way as the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) the other, and if they were both on the Committee the fairest thing they could do would be to pair off. He begged to say he had no local connection with Galway.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, it might be, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, that the Irish Members were interested in favour of the Galway contract, but he would ask if it was not the fact that there were Members on the Committee quite as strongly interested the other way? What he, in common with other Irish Members, wanted was that they as a body should be fairly represented in the constitution of the 1362 Committee. He for one did not exactly like to be governed after the manner of the Ionian Islands.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN
said, be would remind the House that the petition of Sir William Russell, against the return at the last election for Dover, contained certain allegations in reference to the Dover contract, and he would therefore suggest that that Gentleman's case might be prejudiced if that contract were made the subject of inquiry before the Election Committee had tried the allegations in his petition.

MR. WHITESIDE
said, that although the Chancellor of the Exchequer was acting quite justly in placing some of the accused on the Committee, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there were other interests involved in this matter than those of the late Government; namely, the interests of the commercial world in Ireland, and it was not a little remarkable that not a single representative of any commercial place in that part of the kingdom had been placed upon the Committee.