HC Deb 20 July 1882 vol 272 cc1104-7

Resolution [July 19] reported.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

Sir, I do not wish to raise any controversial point; but the Prime Minister has stated that he would be prepared, on the consideration of the clause relating to the appointment of the fourth Commissioner, to state the name of the person so appointed. As this Report relates, among other matters, to the salary of the fourth Commissioner, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can now tell the House who that Commissioner is to be?

MR. GLADSTONE

In the regular course, unless there be some special reasons, it is better not to enter into the particulars of the clause upon this Report; indeed, that is not usual. It will, however, be competent for the right hon. Gentleman, on the Report of the Bill, to comment at once on the name to be announced, and on the particulars of the clause.

MR. GIBSON

I would, of course, acquiesce at once in the course indicated by the Prime Minister, if it were not for the great surprise with which the announcement that a fourth Commissioner was to be appointed came upon hon. Members. The Bill had been before the House for several weeks, and there was never a whisper of a suggestion that a new Commissioner was to be appointed, until it incidentally dropped out in a remark of the Prime Minister the previous day. I quite think, in these circumstances, that we ought to know the name of this Commissioner, and have at least two or three hours' notice before being called upon to discuss the appointment in connection with the clause. I am informed, rightly or wrongly, that it is an hon. Member of this House, and I do not wish now to say anything for or against the appointment; but unless the Government wish again to take us by surprise, it is absolutely necessary that we should have the name of the gentleman.

MR. GLADSTONE

I think, after what has been said, that the best way would be, when we come to the clause to-day, to mention the name of the fourth Commissioner, but without asking the House to adopt the name. It would be quite practical to re-commit the Bill to-morrow, before the third reading, for the purpose of dealing with this clause, and that would give the right hon. and learned Gentleman a little more time to consider the question.

MR. J. LOWTHER

If there is to be a second re-committal of the Bill, it will scarcely meet with the concurrence of the House. The Prime Minister will at once realize that it would not be fair to the House or to the person selected that his name should be suddenly sprung upon the House, or that the House should suddenly be called upon to form a judgment upon the appointment.

MR. HEALY

I must join the Front Opposition Bench in protesting against all this mystery. Why cannot the House of Commons know at 6 o'clock what the Prime Minister admits must be told at 10 or 11? What reason have they for keeping it a secret? Are they ashamed of the gentleman's name? If not, why not tell us now? The matter is of quite as much interest to us, and perhaps of more interest than it is to hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. Strange rumours are about. We are told that it is a person who sits on those Benches. I should like to ask, is the name of the gentleman the name of an hon. Member representing a county in the South-West of Ireland, who generally sits on these Benches? If the Government refuse to allay the laudable curiosity we feel regarding this matter, I think we would be justified in refusing to proceed with this particular Business.

MR. GLADSTONE

As I have explained, my only reason for wishing to delay mentioning the name is that I thought it would be more convenient to consider the matter in connection with the Bill itself rather than on the Report dealing with salaries. In compliance, however, with what appears to be the desire of the House, I may say that the name of the gentleman who accepts the office of fourth Commissioner is Lord Monck.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, that as so much of the personal matter had been disposed of, he desired to know something about the emigration proposals of the Government. They were placed in a very unfavourable position. Unless they knew what the Government intended, they would find themselves agreeing to what they really objected to, and should be deprived of two opportunities of impeding the progress of this matter.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland was in possession of the views of the Government, and would, when moving the clause, explain them fully to the House. Resolution agreed to.