HC Deb 28 April 1885 vol 297 cc1032-49

[ADJOURNED DEBATE.]

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question, "That the Select Committee on Industries (Ireland) do consist of Twenty-four Members."—(Sir Eardley Wilmot.)

Question again proposed.

Debate resumed.

MR. SHEIL

said, it would not be necessary for him to detain the House at any length in stating the object of the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper, because the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had already stated the reason which could be adduced against the proposed construction of this Committee. But perhaps he might be allowed to point out that the real and main objection to the Committee was, that the number of its Members which represented the Irish Party on those Benches was not in proportion to the remainder of the Committee. He might also say that the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot), who moved the appointment of the Committee, was entitled to the thanks of hon. Gentlemen on those Benches for the great care and interest taken by him in Irish matters; it was owing to the hon. Baronet that the hon. Member for the City of Cork had been appointed, with a number of other Members representing the Irish Party, to sit on that Committee. He understood that the Government would not agree to the number of Members representing that Party exceeding six, which, in his opinion, was insufficient for effective representation of their views on the subject of inquiry. He rose, therefore, to say that if the Government were not prepared to agree to that number being increased, it would be the duty of himself and those with whom he was associated to oppose the appointment of the Committee on the proposed basis. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "Twenty-four," in order to insert the words "Twenty-five,"—(Mr. Shell,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words 'Twenty-four' stand part of the Question."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he had rather understood the other night that the feeling on the part of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was that the Committee was not to go on, and that his objection was based on the constitution of the Committee rather than the number of its Members. However that might be, he (Sir William Harcourt) was unable to agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Sheil). It seemed to him that the Committee was very fairly constituted—in other words, he could not accept the argument that one particular section of Irish Members should represent an undue proportion of the number of Members of that Committee. It was necessary, in the construction of a Committee, to consider the resources of Ireland generally; they should have regard to information on the subject from whatever quarter it might come, and not in connection with any particular section of the House. Therefore, he thought the constitution of the Committee must remain as proposed. Without desiring to show the least disrespect to any particular section of the Representatives of Ireland, he said that, in a matter of this kind, the Government ought to have a general regard to the Representatives of the country.

SIR EARDLEY WILMOT

said, notwithstanding what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he would make an appeal to the generosity of the Government to allow the Committee to be appointed in a form that would be satisfactory to hon. Gentlemen on those Benches; and, with that object in view, he asked the Government to allow another Member of the Nationalist Party to serve upon it. The number of the Committee proposed by the Government was 24, of whom the proportion of the Nationalist Party was six. He urged upon the right hon. Gentleman that there was no political question involved in the matter, and they wanted to enter upon the work with reference only to the prosperity of Ireland; and certainly he thought that even if the Government consented to the proposal of the hon. Member for Meath, the 18 Members of the Committee who were not of the Nationalist Party would be well able, in respect of numbers, to prevent any Members of the Nationalist Party turning the Committee into a piece of political machinery. There was the strongest interest felt in this matter, which persons of all political opinions regarded as a step in the direction of increasing the prosperity and welfare of Ireland, and it was most desirable that the labours of the Committee should proceed; because, although they might not get through their work this year, as he had pointed out on the last occasion when this matter was before the House, they had three months before them in which a great deal might be done. There was a large body of evidence to be taken, and to avoid delay he strongly urged upon the Government to accede to the proposal of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Sheil). He repeated that the greatest concern was felt in this matter. He had received letters from all parts of the country, beseeching him not to give way, to show his courage and perseverance, not to allow the opposition to dishearten him, to go on with what he had undertaken, to appeal to the Government, and to throw upon them the whole responsibility, if they declined, for the sake of adding another Member to the Committee, to allow it to go to work. If they did that, he said it would go forth to the country and Ireland that they had not any sincere desire to assist, promote, or encourage those who had for their object the material prosperity of the Irish people.

DR. LYONS

said, he would also appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department to assent to the Amendment. He asked him not, for the sake of a single additional Member who could not really alter the constitution of the Committee, to jeopardize the attainment of the object in view. They wanted a Committee capable of getting through a great deal of work; and he would point out that the Gentleman whom it was desired to add to the Committee was one of the most hard-working men in the House; he knew that he was a man willing effectively to do any amount of work in connection with this inquiry. The matter was almost settled, and he would urge the right hon. Gentleman not to risk the loss of their object by resisting the proposal of the hon. Member for Meath, which would cause in Ireland a very great amount of disappointment. He had received letters which showed that the most intense regret would be felt if the Committee fell through. If this one name were added, the Committee would probably be in a position to go to work in a very short time.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had not met the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Sheik) in at all a satisfactory way. He was obliged to say that the Government had placed every obstacle possible in the way of this Committee, with the result that the settlement of it had been postponed from time to time, and week after week. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Why did you move the adjournment?] It was not he who moved the adjournment of the debate. The Committee was appointed on the 10th of March, and the adjournment was moved for the first time by an Irish Member on Friday last, the 24th of April, so that the Government had very nearly six weeks' delay to account for. That time had been wasted by the Government; and the effect of it would be that the Committee, if it went on at all, would be driven off to a time when it would have very little chance of going to work. He wished to say that the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) who introduced this matter had recommended himself to the affection and confidence of the Irish people by his exertions on their behalf; and he was sure that those exertions would always be remembered by them with feelings of gratitude. But the hon. Baronet had that night renewed his exertions on their behalf, and had, moreover, truly expressed the feeling of the people of Ireland, when he declared, with reference to the attitude taken up by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that the whole responsibility in this matter rested upon Her Majesty's Government. There was not a single claim that the Irish Members had made that had not been strongly resisted by the Government. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), first of all, asked the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor) when this Committee was going to be appointed. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) did not attach any bad motive to the noble Lord; but whether the noble Lord's actions were deliberate and intentional or not, the fact remained that the Committee was postponed day after day, in spite of the questions upon the subject which were almost daily addressed from the Irish Benches. Then they came to the composition of the Committee. This was a Committee which was for the sole examination of the industrial resources of Ireland. Surely it was a Committee which should consist exclusively of Irish Members; or, at all events, it was a Committee on which, unquestionably, the large predominating influence should be Irish. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt) objected to the Members of the Irish Party claiming an undue share of representation upon the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had denied their right to speak as the Representatives of the majority of the Irish people. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) did not think the right hon. Gentleman would do that after the month of next November. He thought that a General Election would be quite sufficient to prove even to the right hon. Gentleman that the Members of the Party led by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) did represent the overwhelming majority of the, Irish people. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) thought that the Committee should largely consist of Members drawn from the Irish Party. It was quite evident that the right hon. Gentleman would much rather prefer that Ireland should be deprived of the benefit of this Committee, than that the Representatives of the Irish people should have their due share of the Members of the Committee. The hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) must not be daunted by the attitude taken up by the Government. The Irish Members heartily echoed the frank and incontestible statement of the hon. Baronet, that all responsibility for the failure of this Committee would lie in the hands of the Government.

LORD RICHARD GROSVENOR

said, he wished to say a few words on the subject of the delay which the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had said occurred in the constitution of this Committee. The nomination of a Committee of this importance necessarily occupied a considerable time. Hon. Members had to be seen personally, and asked if they would serve. That there was some delay he freely admitted; but he maintained that there was no more delay than occurred in the nomination of every Committee of this kind. He was anxious to secure a thoroughly representative Committee, and he used Ms best endeavours to secure that end. It must be borne in mind that the nomination of the Committee was on the Paper for the 30th March, and that since that time the delay had not been occasioned by Members of the Government, but by Members of the Irish Party themselves. He hoped hon. Members would be good enough to remember that only last night the main argument of the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) against this Committee was that there was not sufficient time this year to deal with the subject. The hon. Gentleman did not rely on the question of the constitution of the Committee. As regarded the addition of this name, hon. Members would also remember that, to meet their views, the Government did agree to add another Member of their Party, and also, in accordance with the wishes of the Members of the Irish Party, the Committee was strengthened by the addition of two right hon. Gentlemen—one from each of the Front Benches. As a matter of fact, the Committee was constituted as far as possible to meet the views of hon. Members; and he thought that anybody, looking at the Committee, would confess that its constitution was extremely fair, and that the Party to which hon. Members opposite belonged was very fully represented. The Government had raised no objection to the appointment of the Committee; but, on the contrary, had done their best to secure its appointment. He did not think that any blame whatever attached to the Government in the matter.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, he was sure that no one who had had to deal with the noble Lord opposite (Lord Richard Grosvenor) would blame him in any way. The hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) and himself (Captain Aylmer) had found the noble Lord most courteous in his dealings in this matter. But the noble Lord could not say that the Government were not to blame. The Government had done their best all through to kill this Committee. Four years ago the Prime Minister refused to grant a Committee of this kind, although he (Captain Aylmer) got up a Petition, signed by three-fourths of the Irish Members, in favour of an inquiry such as it was now proposed to hold by this Committee. The Government had only assented to the appointment of the Committee now because it gave the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) an opportunity of saying there was no time in which to make the investigation. He (Captain Aylmer) knew it never would be passed this Session, and that it never was the intention of the Government that it should pass. If the Government had intended that a Committee of this kind should be appointed, they would have appointed one when they were asked in writing, four years ago, by three-fourths of the Irish Members.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

said, he wished to supplement the information given by the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor). When this Committee was being nominated, the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) consulted the Party to which he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) belonged, and the hon. Baronet's own suggestion was that seven Members of the Irish Party should be appointed upon the Committee. To that proposal the Party assented; and to save the Government the trouble of making the selection, a list of seven Members of the Party was sent to the noble Lord (Lord Richard Grosvenor).

LORD RICHARD GROSVENOR

The hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate. A list of six Members was supplied to me.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

said, that certainly seven was the number suggested by the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot); and he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had supposed that a list of seven names was sent to the noble Lord. When the nomination of the Committee, however, appeared on the Paper, they found a totally different Committee from that which they were prepared to find. There were only four of their Party, and these were swamped by a large number of Members from all parts of House. He did not object to the appointment of English Members on the Committee. There were many English Members whoso assistance the Irish Party would be glad to have, because they knew that those Gentlemen would come on the Committee with a serious intention of promoting its object. But everyone would see that the Irish Members were now merely swamped by hon. Members who cared nothing whatever about Irish industries. Let him remind the noble Lord of a precedent of only two or three years' standing. It would be in the recollection of the noble Lord that two or three years ago a Committee was appointed, under the Chairmanship of the junior Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone), to deal with a question mainly connected with Irish interests. On that occasion the hon. Gentleman nominated a Committee consisting almost exclusively of Irish Members; and the hon. Gentleman expressed a hope that that would be the beginning of such a practice in the House. The practice, however, had not been followed since; and there was a striking deviation from this principle in the case of this very Committee, which was concerned exclusively with the interests of the Irish people.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said, it was a most extraordinary thing that the Government would not accept the extra name which the Irish Members desired to have placed on this Committee. He thought it would be generally admitted that the Committee was one which concerned Ireland alone, and that, therefore, the wishes of the Irish Members on the matter should be respected. If the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt), who now represented the Government, was as anxious as the Irish Members that this Committee should be appointed, and do some good work, he would not object to the name which they proposed to have placed on the Committee. Certainly, the number of Members from Ireland whose names were already upon the Committee did not appear to him to be at all sufficient for the requirements of the case; and, after mature deliberation, he and his hon. Friends had arrived at the conclusion that the appointment of six Members of their Party would be much more calculated to insure the success of the objects for which the Committee was formed than five Members would be. If the right hon. Gentleman killed this Committee, because he would not allow this extra name to be put upon it, his action would be viewed in Ireland with a great deal of disapprobation; and certainly the verdict of the Irish people would be that the Government were not in earnest in their desire to promote this Committee, or else they would not have endangered its existence by refusing to allow this one other name to be put upon it. He could not understand why the Government should refuse to assent to this extra name; surely it could not be a matter which concerned them very much. On the other hand, it was a matter which concerned Ireland and the people he and his hon. Friends represented very much indeed. Therefore, they appealed to the Government to give them six Members upon the Committee instead of five Members.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said, he wished to support the appeal which had been made by hon. Members opposite—namely, that the Government should assent to this very modest and very just proposition. He did not think the Secretary of State for the Home Department could really have looked into the matter himself, or else he would have seen the reasonableness of the position assumed by hon. Members opposite. It was proposed that this Committee should consist of twenty-five Members, and all that the Irish Members asked was that they should have six Members upon it. The hon. Members opposite might not be numerically strong in the House; but, undoubtedly, they had a very large body of the people behind them in Ireland; and he thought that anybody who considered the facts would admit that the request of those hon. Gentlemen was a very moderate one. He thought that this was just one of the instances in which the Government did themselves very much harm. It was quite clear that however much the Government might be anxious to obtain this Committee, it would be said that by the original delay which took place, and by their refusal to grant the addition of this one Member, they did not desire the Committee should be appointed at all; and he could not help expressing the opinion that this would be said with some justice. Unless a Committee of this sort was entirely representative of all sections of the people, he agreed with the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that its appointment would serve no good purpose. He thought there was time, even this Session, for a certain amount of good work to be done; or, at all events, for the foundation to be laid for a future Committee in some future Session of Parliament; and, therefore, he appealed to the Government to make this simple concession, which would smooth the way for the appointment of the Committee, and which would show that they really desired that the Committee should be held, but which, if they refused, would do them a great deal of harm in Ireland.

MR. SEXTON

said, it seemed that the Government had made up their minds that they would not say anymore on this subject.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

We cannot say any more.

MR. SEXTON

said, that the suggestion of the Government was that the Committee should consist of twenty-four Members, and out of that number twelve should be English Members. If a similar Committee were appointed on a corresponding English subject, how many of its Members would be Irishmen? They had an example lately, when the Committee, on the Registration (Occupation Voters) Bill was appointed. There was not a solitary Irish Member on that Committee. Where the subject was English, Irish Members usually did not press for representation, unless the matter to be taken in hand had some bearing or other on the interests of their country. Even then they were satisfied with a nominal representation. There were twelve Irish Members nominally on this Committee; but the Government proposed that only five should belong to the Party led by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell.) The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt) called that a section of the Irish Party. They considered themselves to be the only Irish Party in the House. The other Members for Ireland were the obedient followers of the two English Parties in the House. They had no separate existence; they had no soul, no conscience, nor line of action of their own. That being the case, he declined to recognize them as representative; and if the House waited until next January, when hon. Members came back to Parliament, those who said that the Irish Party were a "section" would see whether they were so or not. He could tell the right hon. Gentleman that the return of the Irish Party to that House, not as a section, or as a fraction, but as the acknowledged and overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland, was a much more certain thing than the return of the right hon. Gentleman's Government, or the return of the right hon. Gentleman himself. What were the Government afraid of? What horrible possibilities did they see in the addition of this one Member? The Committee would consist of twenty-five Members, only six of whom would belong to the Irish Party. Did not the right hon. Gentleman know perfectly well that, in connection with any proposal brought before the Committee, he could rely upon the solid vote of nineteen? What, then, wa3 the right hon. Gentleman afraid of? The hon. Member for the City of Cork was naturally unwilling to enter upon laborious and long proceedings in this Committee with only four of his Colleagues, and was of opinion that five was the least number he could accept. The hon. Member believed that without six Members of his Party they could not hope to elicit the proper kind of evidence. He (Mr. Sexton) could come to no other conclusion, from the obstinate resistance of the Government on this question of one Member, infinitesimal to them, but of the greatest importance to Ireland, than that, whatever the professions of the Government might be, they were desirous in their hearts that the Committee should not be appointed. Let the House consider the delay which had occurred. The Committee was assented to by the Government last year. Since then, more than half a-year had elapsed. If the Government had allowed the Irish Members to have the representation they desired, the Committee would have been appointed. Even if they had allowed the Irish Members to have six Members, it would have been appointed any time within the last six weeks; but day after day had passed away, and the appointment of the Committee had been staved off, and now the House found itself asked to enter upon a grave and weighty inquisition on a most important question in what he might call the last hours of a dying Parliament. What could be done between now and the end of the Session? It was true that the hon. Member for the City of Cork had objected to the number of Representatives allowed him; but the delay had been so great that another objection had arisen. There were only twenty-four Members proposed; but what assurance had the House that these Members would come back to Parliament in the General Election? He might not err on the score of rashness if he said that at least half of them might not return. Was the hon. Member for the City of Dublin, with all his chances of life, and with all the vicissitudes of politics upon him—was he ready to commit himself to an inquiry of this kind, when the Tories might come with their shears and cut the web of his intentions? Suppose the House rose in July or August, and Parliament died immediately, the Committee could not ask Parliament to reappoint it; and the result would be that the whole thing would have to be taken again de novo next year, and in the absence of a number of men who had lost their seats, and would not be able to give the new Committee the advantage of the study and investigation they had given to the question. The Committee would then be burdened with a number of hon. Members who had not had an opportunity of considering the question. He thought the hon. Member for the City of Cork had come to a right conclusion, when he asserted that more harm than good would result from a hasty consideration of this subject. He believed the investigation would be much better begun in the favouring atmosphere of a reformed Parliament, and under circumstances which would render the right hon. Gentleman opposite politically more genial and arithmetically less rigorous.

MR. MOLLOY

said, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt) could not reply to the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Sexton); and, in order to give him an opportunity of doing so, the best thing that could be done would be to move the adjournment of the debate. The right hon. Gentleman would then be able to state, on behalf of the Government, whether he intended to accede to the demand of the Irish Party.

COLONEL NOLAN

Do not move it.

MR. MOLLOY

said, he was anxious to put an end to a debate which seemed to be useless, and which was keeping them out of bed for no reason.

COLONEL NOLAN

Do not move it.

MR. MOLLOY

I move that the debate be now adjourned.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Molloy.)

MR. LEAMY

said, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Molloy) would withdraw that Motion. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt) had stated that the Government had already spoken; but the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) was present, and he would be able to give them the answer they wanted. He (Mr. Leamy) would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman what harm it could do anyone to give this additional Member? Could he find a satisfactory answer to that? It was an extraordinary thing to say that the Committee should be refused because the Irish Members wanted to have this extra name added to it. What objection could there be to this proposal, and would the Government tell them why it was they would not accept it? If it were accepted, the Com- mittee might be at once formed, and could proceed to business in a day or two.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that of course he could not refuse the invitation of the hon. Member who had moved the adjournment (Mr. Molloy). He did not know what further explanation there was to give—he did not know whether the hon. Gentleman had beard the speech of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) or some other hon. Gentleman who had spoken opposite; but he had said that his distinct view was that the Gentlemen who belonged to the Party that sat on these Benches were the only Gentlemen who represented Ireland, and who ought to represent Ireland on the Committee. [Mr. SEXTON: The only Irish Party.] That was their view; he did not know whether it was the view of his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Sydney Buxton); he did not think that hon. Member would accept the statement. It was exactly because this Motion was made from that point of view that the Government could not assent to it. The Government were dealing with the present Parliament; they had not powers of prediction as to the future Parliament; they were dealing with the present; and it would not be decent for them to accept, as the foundation of the appointment of a Committee on Irish Industries, the proposition that a number of Gentlemen, whom he had no doubt were very influential as Irish Representatives, were the sole Representatives of Ireland in respect to those industries. He, therefore, hoped the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peterborough would reconsider the observations he had addressed to the Government in the light of that statement. They must consider the constitution of the Committee, he did not say in reference to a "section" of a Party—he would not use that word, and if he had used it he had not intended it in any disparaging sense. The Government were obliged to consider the matter not from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but as a whole. They had come to an agreement, and this was really the foundation of the whole thing; they were anxious that the Committee should be appointed, and they had come to an agreement with the hon. Baronet who proposed the Committee (Sir Eardley Wilmot) and the hon. Member who, in these matters, acted as the Representative of hon. Members opposite, as to the basis of the Committee, and the Government were prepared last Friday to pass it through. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), however, got up and opposed the appointment to some extent on the grounds of its constitution, but mainly on the ground that it would have no good result, but, on the contrary, would be rather injurious. Everyone who remembered the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork would remember that that was the position he took up. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had repeated that argument with great emphasis, and had said that to appoint a Committee at the fag end of a Parliament would be a useless and injurious operation. In the face of that, what was the use of hon. Members endeavouring to force upon the Government the responsibility for the Committee having fallen through? The hon. Member for the City of Cork had moved the adjournment of the debate the other night—he had not proposed to add another Member, or to take any course of that kind. The hon. Member had told the House that he thought the Committee would do no good, and that had led to its being postponed to Tuesday. On Tuesday this proposal was made, which was, in fact, a departure from and an overthrowing of an agreement which had been come to by all the Parties on the subject. It would be utterly impossible to do the Business of the House if, when Committees were appointed by regular agreement between all the Parties, they should be thrown over at the pleasure of one Party, as this Committee had been, by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, first in his Motion for Adjournment, and now in this Motion for an alteration of the constitution of the Committee. It was from no desire on the part of the Government to prevent the constitution and appointment of this Committee, but rather for the purpose of standing by the agreement all Parties had come to, that the Government resisted the proposal of hon. Members opposite. The whole history of the attitude of the Government showed that their desire had been to abide by the agreement arrived at between their own Representatives, the right hon. Baronet who had moved the Committee, and the Representatives of hon. Members opposite. If that agreement had been carried out the Committee would have been appointed last Friday; and he (Sir William Harcourt) could not, on the part of the Government, accept any responsibility for any failure which might have resulted from a departure from the original agreement.

MR. MARUM

said, he did not think the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt) had addressed to the House were at all sound. A Member returned to this House by any constituency was the Representative of that constituency only; he was presumed by the law to be simply a Member of Parliament; and therefore it was not open to a Minister of the Crown to say that the addition of a Member like the hon. Member for Ennis was objectionable, for the reason that he represented a particular Party in the House. So far as that statement was concerned the right hon. Gentleman ought to withdraw it.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I was not the author of that argument; the hon. Member is distinctly proposed as a Member of the Party opposite. He is not proposed by me, but by his political Friends.

MR. MARUM

said, he thought, however, that there had been a precedent set that night which was very inconvenient. On previous occasions the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had brought forward questions of this kind; and, after a great deal of argument and delay, concessions were obtained from the Government. As concession was, therefore, to be expected in the end, it was to be regretted that the Government had not expedited matters by acquiescing in the proposal made, or by coming to some arrangement as to this Committee. He could assure the Government that the falling through of the Committee would be a very serious matter. The name of the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) was revered in Ireland for the manner in which he had brought forward this question, the question being one which had very closely and earnestly engaged the attention of the Irish people. He (Mr. Marum) did not desire to detain the House any length of time, and he would, therefore, merely urge upon the right hon. Gentleman opposite not to allow the Committee to fall through. If he did, upon the Government must rest the responsibility. The matter had been before the Irish people for some time, and they should not be told now that the whole thing was a sham.

MR. O'SHEA

said, he hoped the Government would think twice before they allowed the Irish people to suppose that they had, by reason of an arrangement of the Whips, thrown over such a Committee as this. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) that if the Committee fell through it would be considered in Ireland, whatever the real reason might be, that the Government were opposed to an inquiry into this very important subject. What on earth could it matter whether there was an additional Member on one side or on the other on a question which would really be a test question to the Irish people as to the feeling of the Government towards Ireland on this question of Irish industries? He thought the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) should get up and say that he accepted the proposal of the Irish Members. He trusted the Government would not take such a suicidal step as to allow the Committee to fall through.

MR. WOODALL

said, he thought that the House generally sympathized with the appointment of this Committee, and believed in the possibility of great good to Ireland resulting from it. Indeed, he was sure that all of them must have been conscious that hopes had been encouraged and much interest stimulated in the question already. Well, he was sorry that the Government did not see their way to assenting to the proposal to add another Member. On the other hand, he could not feel that the whole responsibility for the lapse of the Committee would rest on the Government if it fell through that night. He hoped he might be permitted to appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider whether they were not accepting very grave responsibility in allowing a matter of this kind to fall through, after the negotiations which had taken place, on such a small point as the addition of another Member. He had already served upon a Commission which had inquired very fully, and had presented to the House a mass of evidence and information bearing upon the subject. He was desirous to see it proceed, as he was confident it would bring about important results in developing the industries of the Sister Country, which had been so long neglected; and he earnestly hoped that the Committee would be appointed, and would set to work to collect material which any other Committee appointed by the next Parliament would be able to take in hand and make valuable use of. Though many Members appointed on the Committee might have no connection with Ireland, they would be Gentlemen engaged in the various industries of this country, the influence of which they would like to carry to Ireland. He, therefore, begged most earnestly—whilst, on the one hand, expressing his surprise that they could not arrange this difficulty by adding another Member to the Committee—to urge hon. Members opposite not to accept the responsibility of defeating the appointment of the Committee for the mere sake of getting added to it another Member to represent their political views. Political questions really should not arise in an inquiry of this kind.

MR. MOLLOY

intimated that he had no wish to press the Motion for the adjournment.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. STEVENSON

said, he would join in the appeal to the Government to allow this additional Member to be appointed to the Committee. He thought it desirable that the Committee should be appointed, and for that purpose that it should be constituted in such a way as to satisfy the desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He should certainly vote for the nomination of an additional Member.

Original Question put, "That the words 'Twenty-four' stand part of the Question."

The House divided;—Ayes 6; Noes 24: Majority 18.—(Div. List, No. 141.)

And it appearing on the Report of the Division that 40 Members were not present,

House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.