NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 20 May 1879)

§ MR. ISAAC
said, that he should like to ask the attention of the House while he made a personal explanation on the matter, and he trusted no hon. Member would object to his doing so. He would refer to two matters—1st, to the debate that took place on the 2nd April last, on a Motion of his own, in which he called the attention of the House to the formation of the Select Committees on Public Business; and, secondly, to the debate raised by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), on the question of the sugar industries. He was bound to revert to those two questions, for the purpose of showing that he had a reasonable, proper, and Constitutional right to oppose the nomination of this Committee of 17 Members, and that he did not raise his objections for the purpose of obstruction. It had been allowed that every hon. Member of the House was entitled of right to comment upon all matters of Public Business that came before it, and he might say that, although his name appeared in the Division List in support of this Committee, he went into that Lobby by mistake; but he did not think that it was of sufficient importance to go to the Table with the Tellers for the purpose of rectifying his error. In his own justification, he might say that he told the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets of his intention to raise an objection to the Committee, and that he called his atten- 926 tion to the Standing Order of the 25th June, 1852, by which the number of Members to be nominated on any Committee was limited to 15, unless by special consent of the House. So far, he had done all that one hon. Member should do in giving Notice of his intention to object to the Committee. But the names did appear on the Paper after he intimated his intention to object to the nomination, and when the names appeared on the Paper, his objection was very much stronger, and in that objection he was joined by several hon. Members of the House, and a Notice of objection by another hon. Member appeared on the Papers of the House at the same time that his own did. His hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) put an objection on the Paper; but, for some reason of his own, he had withdrawn it. But that did not interfere with his (Mr. Isaac's) objection. He entertained a strong opinion with respect to the number of names submitted for nomination on these Committees, and he contended that he was within his Constitutional right in objecting to the Committee consisting of 17 Members. In answer to a Question that was put to him, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had appealed to him to withdraw his opposition. He could not answer the Chancellor of the Exchequer that evening, nor could he express his views upon the subject on the occasion without putting the House to great inconvenience; but he loft it in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to arrange the matter, and had agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if the number of the Committee were limited to 15, lie would no longer raise an objection. The only stipulation he made to that offer being that the two names last put on the Paper—namely, the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), and the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), should remain part of the 15. lie was bound to say that he had heard nothing of any kind from the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) with respect to the matter, and in the absence of any communication from him asking his views, he did not consider that he had any right to take notice of the agitation made both inside and outside of this House; indeed, to so great an extent had the agitation been carried, 927 that it was even threatened to send a deputation to Nottingham, and thus induce the working men there to unseat him. He was bound to say that he still objected to the number of the Committee being more than 15, and he thought that, in justice to himself and his case, the number should be reduced. He made those observations in order that hon. Members might know the reasons for his opposition, and in order that he might not be accused of obstruction. In the future, it was his intention during the rest of the Session to oppose the nomination of any Select Committee where the names exceeded 15 in number. He trusted that the explanation he had given would be satisfactory to the House. He might say that he should not oppose any further delay in the nomination of the Committee; but he hoped that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets would meet his objection by reducing the number to 15.

§ MR. RITCHIE
said, he must place before the House his version of what had taken place, as it differed materially from that described by the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Isaac). No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Adam) and his hon. Colleague (Sir William Hart Dyke) were very much obliged to the hon. Member for the interest he took in the nomination of Select Committees. He should not question the right of any hon. Member to oppose the names proposed to be nominated on a Committee. But the effect of the opposition of the hon. Gentleman had been to prevent this matter from coming on at all even for discussion. He ventured to think that opposition of that sort was unjustifiable, for the House, having resolved upon the Committee, there remained the further step to nominate the Members to serve on the Committee, and the effect of the opposition of the hon. Gentleman was to prevent the House from carrying out its own Resolution. The hon. Gentleman said that he had never asked him as to his views upon the matter, and that no Question on the subject had over been put to him. The House would, no doubt recollect that when he asked a Question of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject, the right hon. Gentleman expressed a hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham would withdraw his opposition 928 to the appointment of the Committee. He then immediately asked the hon. Member whether, after what had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would consent to do so? The hon. Member did not pay him even the ordinary courtesy of replying to his Question, although in the House. After that, he did not feel justified in again mentioning the matter to him. The hon. Gentleman had stated that he had originally told him of his intention to object to the Committee, on the ground, of the Standing Orders, unless he limited his Committee to 15; but after the Committee had been appointed, the hon. Gentleman stated to him that he had changed his mind and that unless he limited his Committee to 13, he should object to it. On further conversation with him, he (Mr. Ritchie) told the hon. Member that the Standing Orders permitted 15 Members to be nominated, and he (Mr. Ritchie) proceeded to obtain the names of hon. Members in the usual way. It was useless for the hon. Member to come forward now to say that he objected to 17 names; for what he really objected to at first was that 15 Members should be on the Committee, the other two were added after the hon. Member had put his Notice of objection on the Paper. In respect to the opposition of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), it was based upon a sound and intelligible principle—namely, that the Committee ought to be strengthened by the addition of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). He quite agreed that the hon. Member for Liskeard ought to be on the Committee, and he was sure that that hon. Member would acknowledge that he was one of the first he had applied to, but he was then unwilling to serve. It was his great anxiety that the Committee should be a strong Committee, and when he complied with the request of the hon. Member for Swansea, his opposition was immediately withdrawn. He hoped that he had now satisfied the House that the course he had taken was a usual one; but he ventured to think that the course taken by the hon. Member for Nottingham had been altogether unusual and unprecedented upon a question of the nomination of a Select Committee. If the hon. Member had objected in the first instance to the Committee being com- 929 posed of more than 15 Members, he should have paid every attention to his representations; but as he had now obtained the names of hon. Members and placed them on the Committee, he did not see how he could ask any hon. Gentleman to have his name taken off. He, therefore, hoped that the House would support him in nominating 17 Members to serve upon the Committee.

§ MR. DILLWYN
observed, that he placed a Notice upon the Paper with reference to the number of this Committee, though he could not agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Isaac) that the Committee should be limited to 15. He was opposed to the Committee in toto—he did not like it, and did not think it would lead to good results; but when he saw the names of the hon. Members whom it was proposed to nominate to serve on the Committee, he considered that there was an undue preponderance of Gentlemen likely to be biased—not improperly—but still biased on the subject, and, therefore, he objected to the nomination of the Committee. His hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) very frankly and fairly met his views, and named two other Members—the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), and the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon). He did not altogether like the Committee being raised from 15 to 17; but still, as his hon. Friend had met his views so fairly, he did not think he could do otherwise than withdraw his opposition, and he, therefore, felt bound now to support the nomination of the Committee as he proposed it. He did not like the Committee at all; still, as his hon. Friend had done his best to meet his views, he should accept what he proposed.