NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 17 April 1885)

§ MR. SEXTON
said, he thought this Committee was badly nominated. Of the proposed 15 Members only one belonged to the Irish Party, and he, though very competent for the duty, was not now in attendance in the House, nor did he know when his hon. Friend could attend. The subject of the proposed inquiry had particular interest for Irish Members, inasmuch as Ireland contributed more than her share towards the general expenditure, and received much less than her fair proportion in return. Several of the Departments were starved to the disadvantage of Ireland, and the whole system of Civil Service administration in Ireland deserved the serious attention of the House. For instance, in the Board of Works Department it was the custom to prepare inflated Estimates spent in the increase of the pay and allowances of permanent officials, by a system very nearly approaching fraud. He 125 maintained that a representation of the Irish Party by one Member was altogether inadequate, and whenever his hon. Friend (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) could not attend a meeting they would have no Representative. He would suggest a postponement of the subject, unless the Government would give them something like a real representation. It could not be pretended that a fifteenth was an adequate representation of the Irish Party on a subject in which Ireland had a special and peculiar interest.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, he understood that his noble Friend who had charge of the arrangement of these matters had consulted the Representative of hon. Members on the Benches opposite in reference to this Committee.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, yes; but offered only one nomination.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, this was the first intimation of any dissatisfaction with name or number; there had been no suggestion of it, and they were taken quite by surprise. These arrangements were made, as necessarily they must be, by understandings arrived at beforehand.

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)
said, in reference to the constitution of the Committee, that his hon. Friend the Member for North Lincoln (Mr. Winn) had only nominated five Members; not that he complained of that—no doubt it was a proper arrangement. He was one of those nominated; but owing to a change of circumstances, of which the House was aware, he was afraid he should be unable to give much attention to the proceedings. But what he desired to point out was that this Committee was not struck in the usual way; the object had evidently been very naturally and properly to put upon it Gentlemen selected rather with a view-to their acquaintance with the subject of inquiry than with regard to the balance of Parties. He apprehended it was not a question into which political feeling would enter. He only mentioned that to show that Irish Members were only in the same position, as regarded proportion, as the Conservative Party.

§ MR. SHEIL
said, he did not understand that his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was dissatisfied with the name of the hon. Member (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) on the Committee. He (Mr. Sheil) was responsible for that 126 nomination; but it must not be assumed that when the noble Lord (Lord Richard Grosvenor), coming for a name, received it, that thereupon the Irish Party were necessarily satisfied. It was no part of his duty to point out the faults he might think existed in the constitution of the Committee. So far as his duty was concerned, it was fulfilled by handing in the name of the hon. Member (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) when asked to nominate a Member.

§ MR. HEALY
said, it must be understood, as observed by his hon. Friend, whose zeal and activity was well known, that his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) in no degree desired to cast any slur upon the nomination— quite the contrary. There was some force in the remark of the Home Secretary; and all must feel that in the delicate duty of appointing a Committee it was necessary to have some understanding as to what should take place, to avoid, as far as possible, discussions of a personal character. If the noble Lord had instructions to put in a Member of the Party, of course he would go to his hon. Friend the Irish "Whip" (Mr. Sheil), and so the name would be settled. But in the House the Party had a perfect right to challenge the proportion of their representation. Surely the Home Secretary would see they were entitled to some consideration. Apart from any other considerations, why not treat them fairly in proportion to their numbers? It might be the Committee would not finish its task, and would have to be recast after the General Election. Why wrangle over such a point for an hour at such an hour? If the Irish Party had more than their right, would it "set the Thames on fire?" Was there anything of a revolutionary nature to be apprehended from the proceedings of this Committee? Why show such an ungracious grudging spirit? Indeed, they were under an obligation to his hon. Friend for his endeavour to get Ireland properly represented in this matter. He would ask the Government, who demanded 14 Representatives and Ireland one, were Irish Representatives such formidable persons that another could not be trusted on the Committee? Surely they would not pay Irish Members the extravagant compliment of supposing that another of their number would upset the balance?

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, he might mention that in the nomination of another Committee, a Motion for which was on the Paper, though it would not be moved, were two Members from the Party opposite below the Gangway out of a total of 15—more than the proper portion. He would suggest that it was open to Members to increase the numbers of this Committee.

§ MR. HEALY
asked, would the Government agree to that?

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, he could not promise that.

§ MR. HIBBERT
said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not present; the arrangements for the Committee had been agreed upon with his right hon. Friend, and it would be inconvenient to alter those arrangements in his absence. He (Mr. Hibbert) would suggest that the Committee should be appointed as proposed, and that subsequently a Motion might be made by any hon. Member to increase the number of the Committee by two; one of these might then be a Member from Ireland. He might mention that already there were two Irish Members nominated out of 15.

§ MR. HEALY
said, one was merely a Liberal Member.

§ MR. HIBBERT
Of course, if two Members were added to the Committee, Ireland would have a fair claim for another Member.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, the best way of ending the controversy would be to adjourn the debate to Monday, giving the Chancellor of the Exchequer the opportunity of making up his mind. He therefore moved the adjournment of the debate.

§ MR. HEALY
said, he would ask the Speaker on a point of Order whether, if this was the first time—as he believed it was—that this Notice of Motion had appeared on the Paper, objection taken was not in itself sufficient to bring the Motion within the operation of the Half-past 12 Rule, and necessitate a postponement?

§ MR. SPEAKER
The nomination of a Committee is excepted from the Half-past 12 Rule.

§ MR. HEALY
said, he thought it was brought within the Standing Orders.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. and learned Member is referring to a separate paragraph in the Standing Order relating to Standing Committees. The nomination of an ordinary Select Committee is also exempted from the Half-past 12 Rule.

§ MR. HIBBERT
appealed to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) not to press his Motion. He would certainly use his influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase the number on the Committee to 17. He was not in a position to promise that that would be done; but he would promise to use his influence in favour of it; and if the number was made 17, two of the whole should be Members of the Irish Party.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, if they were satisfied that this would be done their object would be gained. He did not doubt the goodwill and bona fides of the Secretary to the Treasury; but a speech hostile to their desire had been delivered by the Home Secretary. Neither of the Cabinet Ministers present had offered to support the Secretary to the Treasury. If either would promise their aid there would be no objection to the appointment of the Committee.