HC Deb 22 April 1879 vol 245 cc839-59
MR. ISAAC

, in rising to call attention to the present system of nominating Members to serve on Select Committees other than on Private Bills; and to move— That a Committee be appointed, to consist of Seven Members, to be called the Committee of Nomination for Select Committees on Public Bills and other matters; that such Committee shall, unless otherwise ordered by the House, nominate Members to serve on all Select Committees to which Public Bills or other matters may be referred, said, that the system was unsatisfactory to all those who were deeply interested in the appointment of Members to serve on these Committees. It was unsatisfactory to a great many hon. Members who were called upon to serve on the Committees; and it was still more disapproved by the very large number of hon. Members who found that they were never called upon to serve under any circumstances whatever. The existing system induced hon. Members to make the Committees much larger in point of numbers than was necessary, and the consequence was that they were in many cases almost ineffectual. A great many Members appointed to Committees did not attend their meetings, and other Gentlemen only found their way into the Committee Room when divisions upon any important point were about to be taken. Again, some Members of the House were put on four or five Committees sitting at the same time, while others never appeared upon one. He had spoken to several Members of the House, and he found that in large Committees they obtained but a small attendance of Members, and in one Committee consisting of 13 Members he found there was not the full complement on the first day, on the second day there were only 10, and on the third day the number had dwindled down to nine, and that only five of the 13 had attended all the meetings of this Committee, thus clearly proving that small numbers were preferable to large. In large Committees of 21, where they, perhaps, got 10 persons to take their seats, he thought it was doubtful whether the Committee could really be intrusted with the important questions that came before it; and that was certainly the case in a Select Committee of 21, who met to consider the important Business of the House, and, he might say, of the country generally. Half the Members placed on the Committee never made their appearance in the Committee Boom, and he would ask if these Members were performing their Parliamentary duties? It would be easy enough if fulfilling their Parliamentary duties simply consisted in being in their seats in the House and following the respective Whips into the Lobbies; but that was not the only part of a Member's Parliamentary duty. A very well-known and much-respected Member of that House (Mr. Poulett Thompson) some 40 years ago, in bringing forward a Motion with reference to the appointment of the Committee of Selection, said— No man had a right to take upon himself the office of a Member of Parliament, unless he was prepared to discharge all the duties connected with it—unless he was willing, however irksome or disagreeable the task might be, to do that which the House called upon him to perform, which in cases of this kind was one of the most important duties he could have to discharge. Although he was comparatively inexperienced as a Member of that House, he had occupied a seat in it sufficiently long to be able to appreciate the inconveniences of the present system, under which Members were nominated on Select Committees, many of whom merely entered the room when divisions were about to take place. He had not presumed to address the House on this subject without having sought the opinions of a large number of Members in reference to it, and he had found that the general opinion was that the present system was most unsatisfactory, and that it was desirable that some change should take place; and although they were not able to assist by advising him how the present system should be improved, they had assured him that whatever change might be made must be acceptable to the House. He did not propose to take away from the House, or interfere in the slightest degree, with any of the Privileges of the House. His first idea was to propose that Committees for Public Business should be nominated by the Committee of Selection; and he consulted with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Mowbray), who was Chairman of the Committee of Selection, and several Members of the Committee, and he was glad to know those Gentlemen were willing to undertake any duties which the House might ask them. He, however, found that it would not be possible to impose these new duties on the Committee of Selection, the functions of the two sets of Committees being so different; the Private Bill Committees being mostly judicial, and having to definitely decide on matters before them; whereas those on public matters only had to take evidence and report. He had also considered the great increase in both the Public and Private Business of the House during the last 20 years; and therefore he had decided to ask for a new Committee. He thought to ask the House to add this work to that already performed by the old Committee would be placing that Committee in the position they would not like to be placed in. It would, no doubt, be said that they would find it difficult to get hon. Members to serve on such Committee of Nomination; though he was bold enough to say that there would be no difficulty in finding Members of the House to serve on any Committee the House might require them. Any change in the present unsatisfactory state of the nomination of Committees, however simple, would be a great advantage to the House and in the carrying out of the Public Business of the country. It occurred to him, as it would not be advisable to ask for the old Committee to act in this new capacity, Parliament would not object to having an entirely new Committee; but then there arose the difficulty as to how the Committee should be composed. He contended that at the present moment they really did not know how those Committees were appointed; for it was, he understood, almost entirely placed in the hands of hon. Members of whom he desired to speak in terms of the highest praise—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Adam) and the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid-Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke), who performed their arduous duties so well. Those Gentlemen would be very considerably benefited by any change of the present system, for they held official positions, and were bored to death by the claims of Members to serve on Committees to the exclusion of others who had equal claims, or were better qualified. In searching the Journals of the House, and looking through them, he found the same kind of dissatisfaction existed in other Parliaments as existed in this with regard to the Committees on both Private and Public Business, and several Committees had been appointed. With regard to those Committees, prior to nomination, there existed a system of lists made out by the Speaker, the exact value of which he was not able to understand. That showed that certain names of Members were placed above the line, and a certain number of names were placed below the line, and it appeared that was a system that existed from 1826 to 1839, when he presumed, from what he had seen of the Journals of this House, that the dissatisfaction became so great as to require the immediate consideration of the House; and then he found this very important fact—he might say the extracts he should read to the House were taken from the Journals of the House—on the 18th February, 1839, a Select Committee was appointed To consider whether any and what improvement can be adopted in the mode of conducting Private and Public Business. At this period the Committee was composed of Mr. Poulett Thompson, Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Lord Stanley, Mr. Hume, Lord Granville Somerset, Mr. Locke, Mr. Greene, Mr. Aglionby, Mr. William Wynn, Lord Elrington, Sir James Graham, Mr. Edward Ellice, Mr. Freshfield, and Colonel Davies. The Committee met and took evidence, with which he would not attempt to trouble the House; but in a Report, dated February 25, 1839, the Committee reported— The principal objections to the well working of Committees at present appear to be the great numbers of which they are composed. The practice of Members voting without having heard the evidence, and the absence on Bills which are not strongly opposed of any security that due attention will be given to their provisions by impartial Members. To remedy these defects it seems most desirable to combine, if possible, a reduction of the number of Members in the Committees generally, with the enforcement of a more constant and regular attendance on the part of those who are to serve; and obtain, together with a due representation of local interests, some security for the attendance likewise of a certain number of impartial and disinterested Members. It appeared to him that any Member whose name did not appear on the Speaker's list could, by making known his desire to serve on any Committee, have his name placed on that Committee, in addition to those Gentlemen who were already upon that Committee. The Committee agreed to three Resolutions, the third of which was— That the Committee of Selection consist of the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, and of the Committee on Petitions for Private Bills, and the three Chairmen of the sub-Committees, and that three be a quorum of such Committee. That was the effect 40 years ago, when the Committee of Selection was appointed. The present Committee of Selection had done their work well for a very long period; and though he had been in the House only since 1874, he felt perfectly satisfied if they could get a Committee of Nomination on the line of the Committee of Selection, and who would perform their duties as well as the Committee had done, there would be no reason to find fault with the Gentlemen who would undertake the onerous duties. The Resolutions were brought up to the House on February 28, 1839, by Mr. Poulett Thompson, who called attention to the Report. The House, after a discussion, took a Division on the 2nd Resolution, when Ayes were 245, Noes 35, giving a majority of 210. Other Amendments on the remaining Resolutions were moved, but no Divisions were taken; and the Resolutions were eventually adopted by the House, and ordered to be printed. If it was evident that it was necessary that some change should take place in 1839—when the Business of that House, both Public and Private, was much less than now—he considered that he was not asking the House too much now to re-consider the position of Public and Private Business, and try to assist him in bringing forward some scheme by which the difficulty might be remedied, and more satisfaction given to hon. Members in that House. On March 11, 1839, a Committee of Selection was appointed, consisting of five Members—namely, Mr. Estcourt, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Robert Palmer, Mr. Aglionby, and Mr. Greene—three to be a quorum, with power to report from time to time. In order to test the working of that Committee, another Select Committee was appointed on the 9th of August, 1839, and they reported— Your Committee have further to call the attention of the House to the evidence given by Mr. Estcourt, the Chairman of the Committee on Standing Orders, and of the Committee of Selection, in relation to the working of the system adopted by the House for the constitution of Committees on Private Bills at the commencement of this Session. They feel great satisfaction at the advantages which, it appears from his testimony, have resulted from this change, and they earnestly recommend to the House steadily to persevere in the plan with such Amendments as have been suggested by Mr. Estcourt, or may be found desirable from further experience. That was the greatest possible proof that the appointment of the Committee was an advantage to the House, and gave great satisfaction. Things went on in that way until the year 1854, and then it appeared the House, finding the increase of Business being so great and dissatisfaction so general, began to do something in the way of Select Committees. In the Reports of the Committees dated the 7th of February, 1854, he found it was ordered— That a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether, by any alterations in the forms and proceedings of this House, the despatch of Public Business could be more effectually promoted. The Committee was composed of Sir John Pakington, Lord John Russell, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Evelyn Denison, Mr. Sotheron, Mr. Greene, Mr. John Ball, Mr. Wilson Patten, Mr. Brotherton, Sir George Grey, Mr. Walpole, Lord Stanley, Mr. Hume, and Mr. Bright. The Report went on— That the Members of every Select Committee appointed by the House be hereafter nominated by the Committee of Selection for Public Committees to be appointed for that purpose; that such Committee shall consist of the Members of a General Committee of Elections for the time being; that such Committee do nominate 11 Members only to serve on the Select Committee, unless otherwise instructed by the House; that five be the quorum of every Committee to be nominated, unless in any case the House shall otherwise order. It appeared that no discussion took place on the Report. No decision was taken upon it; and the only way in which he could account for that being the case was that at this time England was engaged in a very serious war, which occupied the attention of the House and the country; and he had no doubt that it was owing to that fact that the Report of that Committee was left in abeyance. Another Select Committee was appointed in 1861 on the Business of the House, but it did not go into the question; and again a Select Committee was appointed last year, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was Chairman; but it did not go into the question. After full consideration, and after consulting with several Members of the House, he had decided to ask the House to appoint a Committee of Nomination on the lines of the Committee of Selection, and he would give to that Committee functions according to the duties to be performed by each Committee. The Motion provided for extraordinary occasions; and he considered that the advantages of such a course as the one he asked for were much greater than those by the present method. If the Committee of Selection that had existed for 40 years gave satisfaction, what was there to prevent the Committee of Nomination doing the same? He trusted the House would see no objection to appointing a Committee of seven Members, who would represent fairly the various sections of the House. As to those to be appointed, he would rather leave that to the House itself. There was no doubt it would be a great advantage to have some system of dealing with the Public Business of the House; and at all events, in his opinion, any system would be an improvement on the present want of system. The Committee of Selection had performed their duties well for many years, and nothing could be brought against them. It might be said the new Committee would want experience. He admitted that; but the Committee of Selection, when first nominated, also wanted experience. He had ventured to place before them his views on this question—views shared in by a very largo number of hon. Gentlemen occupying seats on both sides of the House—and he trusted he had made out a case sufficiently strong to induce them to agree to his Motion. It was admitted that the present system of nomination was unsatisfactory; consequently, a change of some kind was imperative. The one he proposed for the consideration of the House he was induced to think would be worthy a trial if accepted, and would, without doubt, lead to the adoption of some system far better than his inexperienced mind could suggest. He would leave the Motion in the hands of those more experienced than himself; feeling assured, whatever might be the result of the debate, that he had not unnecessarily taken up the valuable time of the House, and that it would lead to some improvement as regarded the future nomination of hon. Members to the Select Committee on Public Bills and other matters.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Committee be appointed, to consist of Seven Members, to be called the Committee of Nomination for Select Committees on Public Bills and other matters: That such Committee shall, unless otherwise ordered by the House, nominate Members to serve on all Select Committees to which Public Bills, or other matters may be referred."—(Mr. Isaac.)

MR. DILLWYN

said, that though he did not agree in the terms of the hon. Member's Motion, he fully and entirely concurred with him that some alteration was necessary in the mode of appointing Committees of that House, other than the Committees on Private Bills. The hon. Member described the manner in which the Committees were generally nominated, by a Whip on one side and a Whip on the other. Committees were, therefore, influenced by partizan feelings which it was most desirable should be eliminated from the work intrusted to them, and their decisions were not treated with the respect which the decisions of the Select Committees ought to be. This arose in a great measure, probably, from the fact that under the present system some Members of Committees were not over-zealous in their attendance at the proceedings, and very often, without hearing important portions of the evidence, voted, so to speak, following in the path of their different Leaders. If the most able men that could be selected were appointed Members of a Committee, its decisions would be more respected, and be of greater use than was the case with regard to Committees generally. He fully agreed with his hon. Friend who had brought forward the question, and he thought some change in this respect should be effected. He would, however, venture to suggest to the Government that instead of this matter being conducted in the full House it would be better—and he would suggest the same as an Amendment to the Motion of his hon. Friend, if the latter approved—that a Select Committee should be appointed to consider the present system of nominating Members of Select Committees on matters other than private Bills, and report upon the expediency of making any, and, if so, what, alterations therein. He simply threw that out as a suggestion.

MR. NEWDEGATE

The hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Isaac) has done good service by bringing this subject under the attention of the House, and I trust the House will gravely consider it. The Select Committees of the House might, I am convinced, be so arranged as to render much more practical assistance than they do. If they were so composed as to command more confidence, this would relieve us much in getting through the mass of Public Business which stands upon our Books at present, and which, under existing arrangements, we cannot possibly dispose of. This subject was not fully considered in the Reports by the Committees upon Public Business, which sat respectively in 1861 and 1871; and the Committee on Public Business, which recently presented its Report, gave this subject still less attention. The remarks of the hon. Member who last spoke with regard to the Committee of 1861, are founded on a misapprehension; for evidence of a very important character was taken by it as to the appointment of Select Committees, and what were formerly called Grand Committees of the House. In former days most important matters were delegated to these Grand Committees, as was shown by the evidence of the Chief Clerk at the Table of this House—a high authority on everything connected with the history of the procedure of this House—given before the Committee on Public Business in 1861. That evidence was repeated in 1871, although this subject was not at all gravely considered by the Committee which sat in that year. I cannot, therefore, admit that this question has not been brought before Committees on Public Business, though this question was postponed in favour of the consideration of others which were deemed of more pressing importance. The Committee of 1854, however, to which the hon. Member has particularly referred, reported distinctly in favour of Amendments being made in the manner of appointing Select Committees on Public Business. The hon. Member for Nottingham has, therefore, the Report of at least one Committee on Public Business, and that an able Committee, in his favour. Although, in my opinion, the hon. Member has done good service by bringing this subject again before the House, I think he would do wisely if he confined his Motion to such terms as will embrace the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn)—that suggestion being, that a Committee of this House, carefully chosen, should consider whether the method of nominating Select Committees upon public subjects may not be amended, so as to give the Reports of these Committees more weight with the House than they at present have. This subject was passed over too lightly, in my opinion, by the Committee which sat last on Public Business, notwithstanding that the Committee of 1854 had reported in favour of a change. I do not consider this is at all an unimportant subject; for I have shown, from some Motions, which the House has been kind enough to allow me to submit to it, that the state of our Order Book, though less encumbered this Session than before, is not creditable. As I ventured to submit to the Committee which last sat on this subject, it appears to me that if we are, in any degree, to relieve the House from this encumbrance of the Order Book, and from the necessity of throwing aside, Session after Session, a mass of subjects which, notwithstanding the importance of some of them, we cannot possibly deal with, the most efficient means we could adopt would be to appoint Select Committees which will command more of the confidence of the House than Select Committees do under the present arrangement. For Bills founded upon the Report of such Committees, or referred to such Committees, would probably pass with less delay after such an examination. Having held one of those anonymous but important offices, which are now so well filled by two Gentlemen—the Members for Mid-Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) and Clackmannanshire (Mr. Adam)—I can speak from experience as to the difficulties they have to encounter in having the whole task of selection for Public Committees thrown upon them. I remember very well that, when I hold that office, I was fain to seek the assistance of hon. Members whenever I could secure it; and I think it would be of great assistance to my successors if a Committee were appointed, of which they and their successors would be Members, to nominate the Members to serve upon Select Committees on public subjects. The last part of the Resolution now before the House, as proposed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, I could not sanction. It is well, as regards the Committees upon the Private Business of this House, that the nomination of Members is made absolutely by the Committee of Selection; but I am quite certain that the House will never part with the power of reviewing and sanctioning the name of every Member nominated to serve upon Committees on public subjects. [Mr. ISAAC: I distinctly said that I reserved the right of reference to the House.] I am glad to hear that explanation from the hon. Member; but he must forgive me for having interpreted his view upon that point according to what appeared to me the terms of his Notice, and for preferring the suggestion of the hon. Member for Swansea. This has always been considered a matter which should be referred to a Committee on Public Business; and I think that a Select Committee, which would be virtually a Committee on Public Business, ought to be specially appointed to consider the subject of the proposal which the hon. Member for Nottingham has submitted to the House.

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN

had not had the advantage of hearing all the arguments of the Mover of the Resolution, who had been scarcely audible in that part of the House; but he did not understand him to mean, nor could he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) agree, that the House should part with the ultimate appointment of these Committees. As inquiry into the working of any part of their Parliamentary system, from time to time, might be useful, he should be glad to support a Motion for inquiring into the operation of the present system of appointing Committees; although he believed that, whatever course the House might adopt, the ultimate result would be about the same, for no great improvement could, he thought, be made in the constitution of the Select Committees. Having so far agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, he must now find fault with him. His hon. Friend had been, in his opinion, somewhat hard in his comments on both the appointment and the proceedings of those Committees. His hon. Friend had attributed to them a Party complexion. Well, it was a popular thing in that House to get up and repudiate the introduction of Party feeling. But what was Party after all? The combination of men to carry out certain principles; and whenever a Select Committee sat upon any question involving those principles, Party feeling would be introduced in a Committee just as much as in the House. Committees were not appointed to get rid of Party feeling; but to obtain full and precise information upon subjects upon which such information could be better obtained from witnesses examined before 15 Gentlemen, than by discussion in the House. And the reason why the functionaries on either side of the House, to whom allusion had been made, were referred to in the appointment of these Committees was that their special duties enabled them to know the particular Members on each side of the House who had special claims or qualifications to serve on particular Committees. For this reason they would probably still be consulted, even if a change were made. He believed that on every occasion these Gentlemen took great pains to secure good and impartial Committees; and, so far as his (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen's) experience went, Members did not vote on the Reports of these Committees without having heard the evidence, and their general attendance was assiduous. He had risen principally because he thought a false impression of the way in which Committees did their work would go forth if something were not said after the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, who had not spoken of these Select Committees so well as they deserved.

SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE

said, he was quite sure he should be forgiven if for a few moments he occupied the attention of the House with reference to the Motion of his hon. Friend. He regretted, however, that more Members were not present to discuss the Motion, although he could not personally support it, as—although he felt sure his hon. Friend did not mean to do so—the present wording of the Resolution would, if carried, deprive the House of their right of nominating Members to serve on these Committees, a proceeding which was not likely to find favour with that Assembly. There was nothing in his 11 years' experience of the formation of these Committees which led him to suggest any improvement; in fact, that was rendered unnecessary by the whitewashing he had received from his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen). This was a question which could not be lightly considered. It was one which touched matters connected with the internal Party organization of the House, and it might, perhaps, disturb a state of things which had stood the test of a large number of inquiries of Committees. Therefore, a change ought not to be adopted without serious consideration. It was difficult, no doubt, to explain the position in which he and his right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Adam) stood with reference to this matter. At the commencement of his experience he had a sort of sanguine feeling—peculiar, he supposed, to a youthful age—that by excessive effort he should be able to please some one on this or that side of the House, with reference to the formation of these Committees; but some three or four years of bubble effort had served completely to undeceive him, and had produced on his unfortunate carcase a sort of pachydermatous state which had rendered him perfectly indifferent as to the claims or feelings of any hon. Member. During the last two or three years he had been compelled only to consider what was really best for the public service, irrespective of the wishes or feelings of hon. Members. Two years ago he thought of introducing to the notice of the House a proposal somewhat similar to the Motion now before it, as he considered a change might be desirable. The Committee upstairs, by whom Select Committees on Private Bills were nominated, had certain compulsory powers. They could compel the attendance of Members; but it was not suggested in the Resolution before the House, as regarded the appointment of Public Committees, that they should have any such powers. It would be necessary for the Committee upstairs to send notices to Members, and they would have a difficulty in one of the most important points—namely, in ascertaining the political opinions of Members, and knowing how they were connected with railway or gas undertakings. That the present system had lasted as long as it had was simply because their daily intercourse among hon. Members enabled himself and his right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan to have the advantage of discovering the relations of various hon. Members to particular subjects of inquiry—an advantage which a Committee upstairs would not possess. He disputed the assertion of the hon. Member for Swansea with regard to Party motives. Since he had had anything to do with the formation of Committees his right hon. Friend (Mr. Adam) and himself had been able to discuss these matters from a better point of view. They had been able to discuss them with reference to the feelings and opinions of the House, and to form these Committees from a higher and better point of view than that of mere Party interest or bias; but it was quite true that Party feeling must inevitably enter into these matters in a certain sense and to a certain degree, and that was illustrated in a manner by the fact that the Government of the day was always allowed by courtesy to have a majority of one in each Committee. He was quite aware that the way in which these Committees were formed might be open to objection. They were formed by an agency which was human, and therefore liable to err. From the position which he held he enjoyed the luxury of hearing of his mistakes at the earliest possible moment. He never yet committed a blunder of which he did not get the earliest possible information. He was inclined to support the proposal of the hon. Member for Swansea, because he felt that this was a question which ought not to be lightly dealt with. It was one which was wrapped up in all kinds of difficulties. If they asked hon. Gentlemen to give their time and attention to such duties, they should at least do their best to en- sure that their decision would redound to the honour and credit of the House. He was, therefore, prepared to join in the proposal that a small Committee should be appointed to see by what means the present system could be improved for the general benefit of legislation.

MR. ADAM

said, he agreed thoroughly in the admirable remarks of his hon. Friend who had just spoken. There were not two men who would feel more relieved than his hon. Friend and himself if the House came to the determination to take from them the invidious duty which was now imposed on them. Neither he nor his hon. Friend rested on a bed of roses at any time, and those who had any knowledge of the nature of their duties would be the first to acknowledge it. Sufferance was the badge of all the tribe of "Whips," and they would be very well satisfied to be relieved of some of their labours. Whether it were a popular Committee on which many Members desired to act, or an unpopular Committee on which they had to request hon. Gentlemen to serve, their duties were equally disagreeable and equally onerous. As they were but human and fallible, they could not please everybody; and if, instead of being two ordinary Members of Parliament, they were a couple of archangels, or archbishops, or anything that was most infallible, they could not succeed in satisfying Gentlemen who were either unwilling to sit, or too willing, and could not get appointed. As regarded the proposal of the hon. Member for Nottingham, he did not clearly define what it was he objected to. The subject was one of great importance, and demanded more consideration than could be given to it casually. It appeared to him—though he preferred the Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn)—the best way would be for the Government to undertake to consider the matter carefully, and submit some proposal to the House. The matter was much too important to be left in the hands of any private Member; and he would recommend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the subject and make a proposal to the House at some future time—not as a matter to be absolutely carried out, but as a tentative proposal—to meet the objections that had been urged to the present system.

MR. MOWBRAY

observed, that the House was very much indebted to the hon. Member for Nottingham for bringing the subject before them, for there was, no doubt, a great deal of floating dissatisfaction with the way in which Committees were appointed. His proposition, however, could not be accepted by the House. A Committee such as he proposed could not be intrusted with the actual nomination of Committees. Then the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had come forward with his proposition, which he admitted had been thrown out hastily. For his own part, he concurred in the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Adam). He saw no reason for referring the matter to a Committee; because a Committee could not collect any information respecting it with which every Member of the House was not already perfectly familiar; and the fate which had befallen the recommendations of the recent Committee on Public Business was not such as to tempt them to make another experiment of the same kind. He hoped the Government would take the matter up, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan, and come forward with some definite scheme which the House could take into consideration.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

felt that the suggestion which had been made, that the Government should take into consideration the mode of appointing Committees, and should afterwards come forward with a proposal to the House upon the subject, was a suggestion which would practically end in nothing. His right hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Mowbray) had referred to the fact that a Committee, consisting of many of the most experienced Members of the House, had sat last year to consider the question of Public Business, and had come to certain Resolutions. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) took occasion, at the beginning of the Session, of calling attention to those Resolutions, and he had only succeeded in passing one of them at the expense of several nights' debate; while the hope of successfully proceeding with the other Resolutions must be owned to be very remote. The difficulty, however, was not so much in getting the Resolutions passed before the Committee as in getting them discussed and carried in this House. If they were to come forward and recommend an alteration in the mode of the appointment of Committees—not on the opinion of a Select Committee, but solely on the authority of the Government—they would probably spend a considerable time in discussions which would lead to no result. He was sure he was expressing the opinion of the whole House when he said that the two Gentlemen—his hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman opposite—who had for some years past discharged a very thankless office, had done so to the entire satisfaction of the House. Whether the present system could be improved or not, they must all feel that in carrying through the duty which had been undertaken by them they had shown qualities and taken pains which deserved their best acknowledgments. What was the history of a Select Committee? Some hon. Member who took an interest in a particular subject, and who had made himself acquainted with it, brought it before the House, and showed that it was a subject on which a good deal of information was wanted, and which might be deserving of inquiry by a Committee of well-qualified Members. The House agreed to the appointment of the Committee, and the hon. Gentleman who had persuaded the House to adopt that step was charged with the duty of proposing the names of Gentlemen whom he thought well qualified to elicit information on the question. It was very wise and necessary that the Gentleman who had moved the Committee should be in communication with those Gentlemen who could tell him what were the feelings of the House, and where he would find those Gentlemen who were most likely to assist him. The House, in appointing a Committee, considered not whether it was right that this or that particular Party should be represented on it; but whether its Members would be able to bring all the various lights on the question which it was desirable to bring. He was quite certain that great pains were taken in constituting these Committees; but it might be worth considering whether there should not be an inquiry as to the improvement of the present system. The proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham would take the matter out of the hands of the House, and that, he thought, would not be agreed to, as the House, which agreed to the appointment of a Committee, could not forego the responsibility they thus undertook. He looked with more favour on the proposal of the hon. Member for Swansea, to which he was prepared to yield. Inquiry might possibly lead to some valuable suggestions being made; though whether a new system could be established during the existence of the present Parliament he did not know.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that if Her Majesty's Government were of opinion that such an inquiry as that suggested should be made, it was not for him, or those with whom he acted, to oppose it. He confessed, however, that he did not think any sufficient case for a change in the present system had been made out. It had not been shown that that system worked ill, or that a better could be devised. Some Members had gone too much on the supposition that the "Whips" actually appointed the Committees. The fact was that Members of Committees were appointed by a general feeling of the House, and were composed of men who were most interested in the subjects to be inquired into. It had been objected that under the present system a partizan Committee might be constituted; but in his experience—and he had served on many Committees—he had never known such to be the case. As he had said, he did not think that a case warranting inquiry had been made out. The discussion would, no doubt, do good; and if, on consideration, in the next Session there still was a strong feeling that there should be a change, then he thought the House would feel that there ought to be an inquiry with a view to see whether such a change was advisable.

MR. RAIKES

observed, that if the House accepted the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer it could be brought forward as an Amendment by some other Member, though he believed that it had not been moved by the hon. Member for Swansea. While he agreed with that hon. Member as to the desirability, as far as possible, of depriving their Committees of a violent partizan bias, he thought it was idle to expect that they should be wholly free from a partizan character. There had been a feeling of vague dissatisfac- tion with regard to the composition of their Committees, which was due, he ventured to think, to quite a different class of considerations from those which had been suggested. It appeared to him that their Committees would admit of very great improvement. A Committee was now very seldom composed which was not open more or less to one or both of two common objections. The one was that they saw on Committees the too frequent appearance of familiar names; and the other was that very often the names of Gentlemen appeared who from, he would not say anything of personal interest, but from a peculiar and perhaps extraordinary interest, would certainly not have been those who would have recommended themselves to the calmer judgment of the House if they did not come with that weight which they obitaned from being on the list either of the hon. Member for West Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) or the right hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Adam). Another difficulty arose out of the appearance in the House of a third Party which was entirety independent of both the Government and the Opposition, and whose claims to representation had to be considered. This had necessitated a new arrangement, tinder which the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) came in contact with the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen he had just mentioned; so that they three practically, though not formally, constituted a Committee of Nomination. The proposal before the House was for a Committee of Nomination, and not of Selection. He was surprised that the second half of the Resolution should have been understood in any other sense. He thought the Committee, the formation of which was suggested, would not work well without the presence of the hon. Member for West Kent and the right hon. Member for Clackmannan. There were in the House three different classes of Committees. There were Select Committees for Private Bills appointed by the Committee of Selection, which Committee exercised compulsory powers, and therefore approached its task in wholly different circumstances from those which would surround the Committee which was now asked for. The other two classes of Committees were the ordinary Select Committees and the Hybrid Committees, which were partly nominated by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection. The House scarcely knew the difficulties with which those responsible for the formation of those bodies had to contend in consequence of the numerous applications to serve that were sometimes poured in upon them, and the backwardness that was at other times displayed. The proposal of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) did not seem to him to be one which was likely greatly to improve existing deficiencies with regard to Committees. If the Government assented to that proposal—as he understood they would—he hoped that satisfactory additions to the system suggested by the hon. Member would be introduced at a future time. He felt bound to say that he did not expect very great results from the course advocated by the hon. Member. He rather inclined to the Motion of the hon. Member for Nottingham, believing that it would relieve the agents of both Parties from a great deal of importunity. Under the present arrangement they ought so frequently to say "no," that the fulfilment of their duty must be incompatible with their reputation of being the most agreeable men in the House. He ventured to predict that before many years had elapsed some such alteration as was proposed by that hon. Gentleman would be found necessary.

MR. WHITBREAD

saw one or two difficulties standing in the way of the proposals of the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Isaac) as to a Committee of Nomination consisting only of seven Members. If the course suggested by the hon. Gentleman were adopted, it would, in the first place, be impossible to have represented on such a Committee the several Parties of which the House consisted, and many of those, if not represented, would be sure to complain. Again, the recommendations of such a Committee would be sure to be contested; and in that case the Members of it would have to come down to the House and support their recommendations, and thus they would find their position a most uncomfortable one. In fact, the task which would be imposed upon a small Committee of the House by agreeing to the Motion of the hon. Member for Nottingham was too heavy a one to be borne. The difficulty might be overcome, to a certain extent, by appointing a large Committee of Selection; but it was a question whether such a plan would work well, because such a Committee would not be so easily accessible as would a smaller body. As things at present stood, there was practically a Committee of Selection in the House when each Committee came to be appointed; and he failed to see, therefore, how any system much better than the one at present in practice could be devised. If anything was to be done, however, he thought it should be at the instance of the Government; and he hoped that Her Majesty's Ministers would be sufficiently bold to take the matter in hand and deal with it, after careful thought and consideration.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he had listened attentively to all the arguments that had been brought forward. He thought the House would be most unwise to adopt either the proposal of the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Isaac) or that of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), and mainly on the ground that no question ought to be relegated by the House to a Select Committee for inquiry until a real grievance had been shown, which was certainly not the case in the present instance. He therefore hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not adhere to what he had stated; and that, considering the discussion satisfactory, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nottingham would now allow the subject to drop.

MR. ISAAC

said, he felt much indebted for the valuable suggestion of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). He would ask the House to permit him to withdraw the Notice from before it, and to substitute the Motion suggested by the hon. Member. He could not agree with his hon. and gallant Friend who spoke last (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) that the matter should rest where it was, and that no further steps should be taken. He maintained the opinion that it was of the utmost importance that the whole system of Select Committees should be inquired into and dealt with.

MR. SPEAKER

pointed out that the leave of the House should first be asked for the withdrawal of the Motion.

Question put, and negatived.