§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee of Selection do consist of Nine Members."—(Sir John R. Mowbray.)
DR. CAMERONsaid, the functions of the Committee of Selection were, under ordinary circumstances, not very important or responsible. They had the duty of appointing Members to serve on Private Bill Committees— a duty that involved no feeling of political partizanship; and the duty of appointment had, no doubt, been performed as efficiently and fairly as anyone could desire. Up to two years ago the nomination of Members to serve on Committees involved nothing in connection with Party politics or Public Business; but two years ago the Rule was passed to refer two classes of Public Bills to Grand Committees, and on that occasion the selection of Members to serve on these Grand Committees was entrusted to the Committee the appointment of which was now moved. On that occasion, when the Committee was nominated, it was considered that the change proposed to be made in its functions had so greatly increased its importance that its constitution should be reconsidered; and a long and somewhat acrimonious debate resulted in the number of Members of the Committee being augmented from five to eight. In passing, he might call attention to one circumstance he could not understand. He found that in the Standing Order it was provided that the Committee of Selection should consist of 408 the Chairman of the Committee on Standing Orders, who, ex officio, was to be Chairman of the Committee of Selection, and seven other Members, eight in all. That was the provision he found in the Standing Orders, in the edition so late as August last. If the action of the Rule, entrusting to the Committee the selection of Members of the Grand Committee, rendered it necessary for the House to reconsider the constitution of that Committee, then the nature of the new Rules of Procedure, which it was proposed to submit to the House in the present Session, rendered it doubly necessary to be vigilant in the appointment of the Committee. When the Grand Committees were appointed, only two classes of Bills were proposed to be sent to them, and when those Bills came back from the Committees the House was at liberty to reconsider any Amendments made, and re-open the whole subject; but, under the proposed new Rules of Procedure, it was proposed that a number of different Select Committees on Public Bills should be appointed, and that virtually the entire powers the House in Committee exercised over the details of the Bills should be entrusted to those Committees, so that, when the Bills came back to the House, the House would be deprived of that opportunity of thorough discussion it had hitherto enjoyed. When the Bills came back without Amendments they were to be set down for third reading, and it would be difficult to propose any Amendment—it would have to be done on a Motion for the re-committal of the Bill. When the Bills came back with Amendments the House was to have an opportunity of considering them; but, those being considered, then the question of third reading was to be put without debate. He would not now discuss the merits of the proposed new Rules of Procedure; but it became very evident that the Committee to whom it was proposed to entrust such powers should be very carefully selected. As he had said, in selecting Members to serve on Private Bill Committees, no Party questions were involved. Prom his point of view, the constitution of the tribunals before which Private Bills were promoted, and the means offered for discussion of Business, were utterly unsatisfactory, and it would be impossible by any contrivance to make them worse; but with that, for 409 the moment, he was not concerning himself. But now it was proposed to entrust to the Committee of Selection the selection of Select Committees, to whom all Public Bills, unless they were Money Bills, wore to be referred. It was admitted, in connection with any Committee on a public matter, that it was necessary the existence of Party feeling should be recognized, the division of Select Committees was determined by the Whips; so many Members to represent the Government, so many representing the Opposition, and so many the followers of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). But the appointment of these Committees was always made by the House; and if any unfairness was thought to exist in the nomination, it was open to any Member of the House to challenge the nomination. But when a Committee was appointed by the Committee of Selection the House had no opportunity of doing any such thing; the nominations were made by the Committee sitting in private, and the House was deprived of all jurisdiction in the case. He did not wish to impute to any Member of that Committee any but the highest conscientious motives; but it was obvious that a man entertaining particular political views would think that the best and most sensible Member likely to thrash out any subject would be a Member of his own Party. Thus, without any conscious bias, a Committee would be found constituted in a manner more or less reflecting the composition of the Committee of Selection. That rendered it very important to look to the composition of that Committee before placing it in a position in which it might be soon called on to exercise most important functions. He supposed it was no secret that certain differences of opinion existed in the manner in which they regarded political questions between the two wings of the Liberal Party. Probably there was as much difference as to the standpoint from which questions were regarded between Whigs and Radicals as between certain portions of the Conservative Party and the Whigs. That being so, it was but proper that the Radical element should be represented to an extent commensurate with its strength and importance in the House on that Committee, which would have to Select the Grand Committees or the 410 Select Committees, as they were called, which would have to deal with all legislation that came before the House. In the proposed Committee of nine, only one Radical was nominated among the number. As for the followers of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, they were very well able to take care of themselves; they did take care of them selves on the last occasion, and were pretty certain to get what they desired. But another section of the House, in which he had the honour to be included, consisted of Scotch Representatives, who were not so pertinacious in ventilating grievances they might feel. Scotch Members were represented by a single name, and of course, in nine, they could not well expect a great many more; but the Gentleman selected was a Conservative; and if it was necessary to treat the composition of the Committee from a Party point of view he would point out that six-sevenths of the Scotch representation were Liberal, and therefore it was doing anything but reflecting the nature of that representation to nominate a Scotch Conservative Member. Scotch representation was only conceded, if he remembered rightly, after the vigorous remonstrance of his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay). So long as the duties of the Committee were unimportant, so long as they had to deal with Private and not Public Business, its composition was a matter of little importance. Its business had been to select Members almost in a sort of rota for service on Private Bill Committees, and the manner in which that was done left no ground for complaint. When it was proposed to entrust it with the selection of Grand Committees the question of the constitution of the Committee of Selection was naturally raised, and serious alterations were made in that Committee; and now, when it was proposed to entrust the Committee with far greater and more responsible duties, it was proper that the House should seriously consider the nominations. It might be said that the new duty to which he referred had not yet been imposed on the Committee. That was quite true; but if they allowed this Committee of Selection to be appointed without challenge, then, when the new Rules of Procedure came before the House, they would be told if they made any objection that the new Rules were 411 known to the House when this Committee was appointed, and no protest was made. At least he thought that a protest should be made; and to emphasize that protest he would move the adjournment of the debate, were it not that by doing so he should formally debar the right hon. Baronet from making explanations.
§ SIR JOHN E. MOWBRAYsaid, the hon. Member grounded his objection to the appointment of the Committee on the hypothesis that under new Rules of Procedure new duties would be imposed on the Committee. But the new Rules were not yet before the House, and it was a rather strong hypothesis to assume their adoption as a reason for not appointing a Committee having necessary duties to perform. When the new Rules were before the House for discussion, then would be the time to consider whether, in view of new duties to be entrusted to it, the question of a reconstitution of the Committee should be raised. But there were present duties for the Committee to discharge; whether important or not, they were necessary for the conduct of Private Bill legislation. Undoubtedly, as the hon. Member said, in 1882, in view of the appointment of Grand Committees the Committee of Selection was enlarged, after an important discussion, to eight Members, subsequently raised to nine to meet the views of hon. Members from Ireland. In the nominations the object was to secure Gentlemen of known experience, and the House at large would admit that hitherto the Committee had well performed its duties. It would be invidious to go into the various shades of opinion represented; and he could assure the hon. Member that Party considerations were set aside by the Committee upstairs; but it would be observed that in the endeavour to secure Gentlemen of large Parliamentary experience there had been included from the Opposition side of the House the noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire (Lord Edward Cavendish), the junior Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair), and the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread).
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he regretted that the explanation of the right 412 hon. Baronet was not at all satisfactory. In the last Parliament he raised this question in consequence of the Scotch Representative being selected from the Conservative Party, and a concession was then made, another Scotch Member being added to the Committee, who, however, did not now represent a Scotch constituency. New Members should understand that important duties would devolve on this Committee. To it would be referred the selection of Members to serve on Private Bill Committees, and, in many cases, on Hybrid Committees; and, according to the proposal in the new Rules of Procedure, the Committee would be entrusted with the duty of selecting Committees on Public Bills. The right hon. Baronet retorted upon his hon. Friend that it would be time to raise his objection on the discussion of the new Rules; but he did not know that there was any urgency in the appointment of this Committee of Selection. It might very well be deferred for some time. The House appeared to be in a transition state, and might very well defer consideration of this subject for a time, in order to give the fright hon. Gentleman and those who advised him time for consideration of their position, and to submit new proposals to the House. He did not object to the nominations, but he thought the number too few. It was all very well in former times, when the two Parties were very distinct and divided in the House, and the principle of equal representation was followed by appointing half from each side of the House; but Irish Members had secured recognition of their claims, and the old method was revised. He did not wish, and he did not think, that Party considerations should entirely determine the appointment of this Committee; he did not think that the question of nationality should decide it; but there were practical reasons why the Committee should be fairly representative of the House. It was obviously desirable that the Committee of Selection should, as far as possible, be acquainted with the general sense of the House, and with the special qualifications of Members; and there would be more probability of that in an increased and proportional representation of each country. Then it was obvious that if the Committee was to select Members who were to give decisions on Public 413 Bills, the Members appointed should be selected from the various Parties. The Committee of Selection should be very considerably increased, securing better representation of the feeling of the House, and better qualification for its responsible duties. He did not wish to raise a point of Order; but the right lion. Gentleman had not explained why he had deviated from the Standing Order in nominating nine Members, the Standing Order providing that the number should be eight. That was a point to which he would direct attention; and for the purpose of giving the right lion. Gentleman the opportunity of explanation, and for the purpose of allowing time for further consideration, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, he hoped the House would not adjourn the debate, seeing that the appointment of the Committee was a matter of ordinary business arrangement. The names now proposed were those of Gentlemen who would command the confidence of the House; and he would remind the hon. Member who moved the adjournment that one or two of the names were proposed expressly in recognition of a somewhat similar complaint made in the last Parliament. The names of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Tiling-worth) and of his right hon. Friend Sir Henry Wolff, who was then Member for Portsmouth, were added to give to the Committee a certain infusion of new blood. Having regard to the past services of the Gentlemen nominated, he could not but think it would be a rather bad example for a House anxious to earn a good name in the country for prompt attention to business if, on the threshold, they stumbled over the nomination of a Committee for ordinary business upstairs. He could not but think that the hon. Member, on reflection, would think there was hardly sufficient reason for postponement. The House was full; the names proposed were well known; and he could not believe the House at a future time would be better qualified than now to arrive at a conclusion.
§ MR. THOMAS WATSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was addressing a 414 number of practical men. Would he, therefore, be good enough to explain why it was necessary to appoint the Committee to-day rather than a few days hence?
§ SIR ROBERT FOWLERsaid, as he understood one objection to the appointment of the Committee, it was that the right hon. Member for Leeds, who represented Edinburgh University in the last Parliament, was no longer a Scotch Member. But, though his right hon. Friend had changed his seat, he had not lost his knowledge of Scotch matters. It seemed absurd that the Private Business of the House, and some of its Public Business, too, should be delayed and thrown out of gear because his right hon. Friend had changed his seat from Edinburgh to Leeds.
DR. CAMERONsaid, one reason for adjournment was that in 1883, when the Committee was in a similar position, the appointment was not made until the 27th of February, a month subsequent to the present date. Another reason for adjournment was that the right hon. Baronet had not answered the objection raised to the effect that the Standing Order provided that the Committee should consist of eight Members. That was the rule laid down in the last edition of the Standing Orders, August, 1885; and that prevented him from moving the omission of eight to insert a larger number. That being so, it appeared to him an irregularity that showed the rather loose manner of constituting the Committee, when the Chairman gave Notice of a Motion in direct contravention of Standing Order 98, to which he referred. For this reason, and because, two years ago, the Committee was not appointed until February 27, and no one suffered inconvenience in consequence, the appointment might very well be deferred for a few days.
§ SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYsaid, he could assure the hon. Member there was nothing irregular in the Motion. Last year, or the year before, the number was enlarged to nine, and the House agreed to the appointment. The House met earlier this year; Private Bills had to be grouped, Members had to be communicated with, and there must be delay and inconvenience if the appointment of the Committee was delayed.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he felt they should hesitate to interfere with the 415 regular course of Business in matters of this kind at the present stage, unless there were very strong and clear grounds for doing so. The objections were urged at an earlier hour than he usually attended the regular course of Business, and, perhaps, he had hardly heard them all. He could hardly think, in the interest of Scotland, there was any great reason to complain, or to found a Motion for postponing the nomination. He did not know whether any other substantial objection had been or could be taken; and when there were no objections of a solid or substantial character he, in matters of detail, felt a disposition to defer to the authority of old Members experienced in these matters, and to whose labours the House was considerably indebted. As at present informed, it might be imperfectly, he should be sorry to see the Motion pressed to a division.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided—Ayes 43; Noes 399: Majority 356.—(Div. List, No. 2.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. J. W. BAEOLAY moved, "That the Committee do consist of fifteen instead of nine Members."
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member has exhausted his right of speaking.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the name of Lord Edward Cavendish be placed upon the Committee."—(Sir John R. Mowbray.)
MR. CAMEEONsaid, he had been Careful to explain that he had not made his protest on any personal grounds, but purely upon general considerations. But, having made a protest, he desired to intimate that he should take action upon the matter when the new Rules were proceeded with, if ever they did come on for discussion. He should then have an opportunity of pressing his objection to the policy of placing such large powers in the hands of the Committee of Selection. Having made his protest, he would not consider it proper to obtrude himself further on the time of the House, or to waste time by challenging the various names upon the list. He 416 should, therefore, not make objection to any of the names.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Lord EDWARD CAVENDISH, Mr. CUBITT, Mr. HABCOUBT, Mr. ILLINGWOETII, Mr. JUSTIN M'CABTHY, Mr. OEE EWING, Sir LYON PLAYFAIE, Mr. WHITBEEAD, and the CHAIRMAN of the SELECT COMMITTEE on STANDING OBDEES, nominated Members of the Committee.