§ SIR CHARLES FORSTER, in moving for a Return of the number of Select Committees appointed in the Session of 1884, including the Standing Committees and the Court of Referees, &c., said, the addition was required in order to include in the record of Sessional work the names of those hon. Members who served on Standing Committees and on the Court of Referees up to the present Session. The Return was limited to Select Committees; but the practice of the House naturally changed with changing circumstances, and it was only fair that the names of those hon. Members who undertook such useful and laborious functions, should also appear in the Return.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Return be laid before the House 'of the Number of Select Committees appointed in the Session of 1884, including the Standing
88
Committees and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of Witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Committee; also, the total number of Members who served on Select Committees (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.113, of Session 1883).'"—(Sir Charles Forster.)
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURremarked that, under the present mode of appointing Members to serve at the same time on two or more Committees, the duties, if well and effectually performed, fell very heavily upon certain Members of the House. He knew, from his own experience, that it was utterly impossible, in such circumstances, to discharge the duties satisfactorily, and no Member ought to be appointed upon more than one Committee sitting at a time. The Return should, therefore, distinguish those cases in which Members had double or treble, or even more, duties to perform.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he was obliged to the hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster) for the handsome manner in which he had met his objection to this Return yesterday. The point of his objection—and he still thought it was an important one—was that it was wrong for any Member of the Government, or for any person in an official position, to put down a continuation of a Parliamentary Paper, and then at the last moment propose an addition to it, however good the addition might be. It was the practice to assume that a Paper which purported to be a continuation of a Parliamentary Sessional Paper, was in exact conformity with the Papers of previous years, and he could not help feeling that there was some little irregularity in making an alteration at the last moment. He had no wish to put the House or the hon. Baronet to any inconvenience, and, therefore, he would not oppose the Motion now.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Return ordered.