NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 1 April 1884)

§ MR. SHEIL
said, he rose to a point of Order.

§ THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir ARTHUR OTWAY)
Does the hon. Member object to the Motion?

§ MR. SHEIL
Yes; on the ground that it is not proposed to appoint a single Irish Member upon the Committee.

§ THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir ARTHUR OTWAY)
The hon. Member must object to the names as they are called.

§ MR. SHEIL
said, he proposed to move the adjournment of the debate, lie presumed that the first Motion made would be a Motion for the nomination of the Committee.

§ THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir ARTHUR OTWAY)
The hon. Member would not be in Order at present in moving the adjournment of the debate. No question of debate has yet arisen in the House.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
said, he wished to ask what was the exact Question before the House?

§ THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir ARTHUR OTWAY)
The Question is, "That Sir James M'Garel-Hogg be a Member of the Select Committee on the Metropolitan Railway (Park Railway and Parliament Street Improvement) Bill."

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
said, he had not heard the Question put that a Select Committee be nominated.

§ THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir ARTHUR OTWAY)
Does the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Shell) propose some other name?

§ MR. SHEIL
No; I propose to move the adjournment of the debate.

§ MR. SEXTON
wished to point out, on the question of Order, that this was the first occasion of nominating this Committee. He wanted to know whether, when a Question of nominating a Committee was put to the House, it was not open for his hon. Friend to move the adjournment of the debate?

§ THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir ARTHUR OTWAY)
The hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the facts of the case. The Motion has already been made for the appointment of the Committee, and I have now proceeded to call the names. The Motion has already been agreed to that a curtain number of 1362 Members be named upon the Committee by the House, and a certain number by the Committee of Selection. The only Question now to consider is the names of the Members to be nominated by the House. The name I have called is that of Sir James M'Garel-Hogg.

§ MR. SHEIL
said, he thought he was entitled upon that name to move the adjournment of the debate. The Committee was a very important one, and could not be nominated at that hour after the promise which had been made that all other Business after 11 o'clock should be postponed in order to enable the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) to bring forward his Motion. He might briefly say that he should object to the name of Sir James M'Garel-Hogg, not on any personal grounds, but because he wished to raise the question of the desirability of appointing some Irish Member upon the Committee. One reason why he did this was that the right hon. Gentleman who had undertaken to move the appointment of the Committee was not in his place.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, the hon. Member was mistaken.

§ MR. SHEIL
remarked, that, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman had assigned no reason at all for moving those particular names; and on that ground he (Mr. Sheil) would move the adjournment of the debate.

§ MR HEALY
seconded the Motion, and asked the First Commissioner of Works to withdraw the nomination of this Committee for the present, in order that the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) might bring forward the important Motion of which he had given Notice.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
expressed the hope that the House would allow the Committee to be nominated. He would have no objection to alter the constitution of the Committee, so as to include some Irish Members.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
said, he wished to point out to the First Commissioner of Works that he did not appear to be acquainted with what had already taken place in respect to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman said 1363 that after the Committee was nominated he would be willing to alter its constitution; but the right hon. Gentleman had no power to alter the constitution of a Committee. The House had already agreed that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, five of the Members of which were to be nominated by the House, and four by the Committee of Selection. The First Commissioner of Works said that if the House would kindly agree to the five names now proposed he would undertake to alter the constitution of the Committee. But the right hon. Gentleman was evidently ignorant of the Forms of the House, which would not allow the constitution of a Committee to be altered after the names had been agreed to. The right hon. Gentleman was, therefore, altogether misleading the House. Under these circumstances, seeing the total ignorance of the First Commissioner of Works, who was the responsible Minister in charge of this Private Bill, and upon whom the Bill depended, and whose connection with it was very much to be deprecated, he thought the adjournment of the debate was an eminently proper course for the House to adopt. The question to be put before the Committee raised questions of immense engineering importance; and, with the exception of the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), there was not another hon. Member proposed by the Committee who could claim in any way to be an authority on the various scientific questions which must be raised before the Committee. He thought the Committee was about as bad a Committee as the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor) could have selected. Under these circumstances, and considering the extremely inaccurate and ignorant statement which had been made to the House by the First Commissioner of Works, and considering the composition of the Committee, he hoped the House would not allow this most important Bill to be dealt with in this extremely slipshod way.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, the noble Lord had lectured his right hon. Friend on his ignorance of the Forms of the House; but he must say that, in the statement made by the noble 1364 Lord, he (Lord Randolph Churchill) had exhibited an extraordinary want of acquaintance with the usual and common practice of the House. It had happened over and over again that exception was taken to the names proposed upon a Committee, and especially to the omission of names which it was thought desirable to add. That was a most committee practice, and the noble Lord, who had been more than a year or two in the House, ought to be fully aware of it. Only the other day objection was taken to the fact that there was no Scotch Member appointed upon a certain Committee. What took place upon that occasion? He asked hon. Gentlemen from Scotland to agree to the names on the Paper, with the understanding that if they chose subsequently to move to add the names of Scotch Members he would consent to the proposal. Everybody knew that the common practice in that case was to move to increase the number of the Committee, and then to add other names. That was exactly the proposal which his right hon. Friend had made in this instance. Hon. Members from Ireland desired to have a Member on the Committee. If they would allow the Motion, as it stood, to be passed, as was done the other night, there would be no objection, at a subsequent period, to add an Irish Member to the Committee. Instead of being in ignorance of the practice of the House, his right hon. Friend had acted entirety in accordance with that practice. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No!] He begged leave to differ from the noble Lord. It was precisely the same course as that which was taken the other night in reference to the addition of Scotch Members. His right hon. Friend, however, would do whatever the Irish Members desired; he would either adjourn the debate, or follow the course taken the other night in reference to adding the name of a Scotch Member. He thought it would be more in accordance with the practice of the House to pass the names as they now stood, with the understanding that a Member for Ireland should subsequently be added.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, he did not see how the course suggested by the Home Secretary would save the time of the House. If it was decided that there should, be an alteration pro- 1365 posed in the constitution of the Committee with the view of meeting the, wishes of Members from Ireland, surely it would be better to adjourn the debate now, and hereafter bring forward a proposition of a more complete character.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, he was quite ready to take that course.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, he thought the Home Secretary had fallen into the same error as the First Commissioner of, Works. He (Mr. Raikes) had not been able very clearly to grasp the precise point to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks were addressed, because it appeared to him; that there was a confusion between two propositions. First of all, the right hon. Gentleman took it that the First Commissioner proposed that the thing should be done at once by a stroke of the pen, and then the right hon. Gentleman changed his note and spoke of: its being done on a future occasion. He (Mr. Raikes) wished the House clearly to understand that the proposal which had been made by the First Commissioner of Works was one that could only be carried into effect by varying; the original Resolution by the introduction of a subsequent alteration. Therefore, if hon. Members were desirous that the debate should be adjourned in order that they might see whether it was desirable to vary the original Resolution of the House, it appeared to him that they were perfectly within their right in asking and pressing that demand upon the House. If they were to add the name of any Gentleman from Ireland who might have won the good graces of Her Majesty's Government it could only be done at that moment by; omitting one of the names now upon the Paper. He, therefore, trusted that if the question was to receive the attention which this matter deserved, they would be allowed to adjourn the debate now in order that it might come up for more careful consideration when the House was better qualified to discuss it.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, that all he had asked was that they should agree to the Motion now, and the name of an Irish Member could be added afterwards. He quite agreed that it would be necessary to alter the construction of the Committee. If, however, the House desired to adjourn the debate, he had no objection to that course being taken.