§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland be a Member of the said Committee."
1703§ MR. J. O'CONNOR (Tipperary, S.)said, it would be remembered by the Members of the Government that this Committee was granted at the desire of those who considered that the working of the Irish Sunday Closing Acts ought to be investigated—it was at the desire of people, some of whom believed that the Act had not fulfilled the intentions of its promoters, and some of whom believed that it had. It was thought, on all sides, that there should be a strict and impartial investigation; and his contention was that the Committee, as it appeared upon the Paper, was incompetent to make an impartial investigation. Why did he make that statement? For the reason, first and foremost, that there were only four Members of the Party to which he belonged who were proposed as Members of the Committee. The Irish Nationalist Party was only to furnish one-fourth of the Committee, yet it represented five-sixths of the people of Ireland. That was not a fair representation of the Party representing such a large number of the people of Ireland. Again, there were five Members of the Committee taken from above the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House. Those five Members were men who were actually pledged to support Sunday closing and the suppression of the liquor traffic in all its phases. The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mr. Jacoby) was against the liquor traffic. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Theodore Fry) and the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Rowntree) were also opposed to the liquor traffic. They were very pronounced upon the subject. He made no objection to the hon. Member for South Londonderry (Mr. Lea), because he had a right to be on the Committee, inasmuch as there was a Bill referred to that Committee in which he was interested. But there was another Member above the Gangway whom it was proposed to put on the Committee, and that was the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell). How was it possible to expect that the hon. Member for South Tyrone could bring to the investigation of this subject an impartial mind? He it was who brought up the evidence and conducted the agitation which produced the Sunday Closing Bill. It was proposed to put upon the Committee a Gentleman who was responsible for the present 1704 measure; and was it reasonable or human to expect that he would bring to the investigation of the operation of that Bill a fair and impartial mind? It was not at all to be expected that the hon. Gentleman would go into the Committee to smother his own child; and he (Mr. J. O'Connor) questioned the good taste of the hon. Gentleman in allowing his name to appear among the Members of the Committee. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision in that respect; and he hoped the Government would also reconsider their decision—he trusted that the hon. Gentleman would have the good taste to retire from the Committee, and that the Government would accept his resignation. There were some Members also proposed from the other side of the House. There was the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Madden). The hon. and learned Gentleman had a fair and impartial mind; and he (Mr. J. O'Connor) had no doubt he would use—at any rate, he hoped he would use—his best endeavour to come to a correct decision on the matter. He made no objection to the presence of the hon. and learned Gentleman upon the Committee.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)rose to Order. He asked if it was not the Rule, when one name was nominated for a Select Committee, that the remarks made should be upon that particular name?
§ MR. SPEAKERDo I understand the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. O'Connor) objects to the name of the Solicitor General for Ireland, because the Question I have to put is—"That the Solicitor General be a Member of the Select Committee?"
§ MR. J. O'CONNORsaid, he thought it would expedite matters if he said now what he had to say with regard to the constitution of the Committee.
§ MR. SPEAKERIt would be more regular for the hon. Gentleman to object to any particular name.
§ MR. J. O'CONNORsaid that that would only multiply his speech.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. William Johnston be a Member of the said Committee."
§ MR. J. O'CONNORsaid he desired to take exception to the name. They all 1705 knew the temperament of the hon. Member for South Belfast. The hon. Gentleman was a man of a very enthusiastic cast of mind. He brought to bear upon all subjects he contemplated a very enthusiastic temperament, to say the least about it, and he had made himself the champion of measures introduced for the purpose of doing injustice to classes of people who had been acknowledged by law. The hon. Member for South Belfast was a man who, in the measures he had introduced in the House, had never considered the justice of the claims of the people who had vested interests in the liquor traffic to compensation in case they were deprived of their means of livelihood. The hon. Gentleman had shown himself almost a fanatic in the matter. He (Mr. J. O'Connor) therefore considered the hon. Gentleman was an unfit and improper person to serve on this Committee, and he charged the Government with not having a very just desire to evoke and elicit the truth in suggesting the hon. Member for South Belfast as a Member of the Committee of Inquiry.
§ MR. P. M'DONALD (Sligo, N.)said, he agreed with his hon. Friend that a Committee of Inquiry such as this ought to be thoroughly impartial, and ought to be free from any bias in any direction whatsoever. So far as he could gather from the antecedents of the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston), he did not think the hon. Member could bring to this inquiry a fair and clear mind. The hon. Member had preconceived notions antagonistic to the trade that was to be brought under review. He (Mr. P. M'Donald) considered that no Member of the House who had preconceived notions ought to be nominated on the Committee unless his conclusions were considered to be thoroughly impartial, and he heartily supported his hon. Friend in objecting to the name of Mr. William Johnston.
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)said, that perhaps on this particular Motion he ought to say a few words with respect to the general constitution of the Committee. He did not know whether he should be in Order in—
§ MR. SPEAKERThe right hon. Gentleman would not be in Order. We have now arrived at a particular name—the 1706 name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Belfast, and the discussion must be confined to the qualifications of that Gentleman to serve upon the Committee.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That Mr. Agg-Gardner, Mr. Gent-Davis, Mr. Muntz, Mr. Rowntree, Mr. Jacoby, Mr. Theodore Fry, Mr. Tomlinson, and Mr. Lea be Members of the said Committee," put, and agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. T. W. Russell be a Member of the said Committee."
§ MR. J. O'CONNORsaid, that a while ago, in his general observations, he stated what he wished to repeat now—namely, that he considered it impossible for the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) to bring to the investigation a fair and impartial mind. He said a while ago, and he repeated it now, for the benefit of those who had came into the House since that time, that the hon. Member for South Tyrone was a man who was most engaged in producing the measure they were to investigate. He was the man who organized the evidence that was adduced before the Committee who investigated the question originally, and he was the man who agitated the subject as the official of the Association that promoted the measure—he was the representative of the United Kingdom Alliance in Ireland. He (Mr. J. O'Connor) maintained that, under all these circumstances, the hon. Member was utterly incompetent to bring to the investigation of the subject a fair and impartial mind. While this Committee was in course of construction he stated these facts to the Whips of the Parties, and he asked for a fairly constituted Committee. He asked for a fair proportion of hon. Members sitting below the Gangway, but they had only been granted one-fourth of the constitution of the Committee, although they represented five-sixths of the population of Ireland. He protested against the name of the hon. Member for South Tyrone being included in the Committee, and he repeated the charge he made a while ago, that he did not think that it was consistent with the best taste possible that the hon. Gentleman should allow himself to be nominated for the Committee. He was an hon. Member of 1707 the House, no doubt, but still he defied the hon. Gentleman to bring to the investigation of this subject that fair and impartial mind which it was necessary to do, in order to investigate the truth upon this very large and vexed question in Ireland. He had no object in these remarks except the eliciting of the truth. He had no connection whatever with the liquor traffic, but he had heard it stated in Ireland that there was much hardship duo to the existence of the Sunday Closing Act, and he was anxious to find out whether that was be or not. [Cries of "Order, order !"] He was arguing upon the constitution of the Committee.
§ MR. SPEAKERThat is cot the Question before the House. The Question is the qualification of the hon. Member for South Tyrone to be a Member of the Committee.
§ MR. J. O'CONNORsaid, he had stated his reasons for considering the hon. Gentleman disqualified from sitting upon the Committee. He protested against the hon. Member being a Member of the Committee, and he should certainly go to a Division if the Motion was persevered in.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he thought it was very extraordinary that these names should be opposed. One would think that the Committee had been brought together in an improper way—that it had been got together by Peter the Packer himself. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) did not apprehend anything of that kind. The Committee had been got up by the hon. Member who was objecting to some of these names. The House would recollect that last year it was at the instance of Gentlemen who took a great interest in the liquor trade that this Committee was assented to, and that it was accepted with great acclamation and delight by those opposed to the trade. So far they were all harmonious. The publicans alleged that this Act had caused great drinking in Ireland, and upon that ground they opposed it. That was one of the most unselfish things he had ever heard of. But whether it was unselfish or not, the publicans took a very strong view against the Act and its working. Now, if anyone looked at the Committee, they would see what men the publicans had got upon it. Anyone who knew as much about the matter as he did must 1708 know that those men could be thoroughly trusted. There were upon the Committee four or five of the staunchest publicans—
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Baronet must confine himself to the qualification of Mr. T. W. Russell.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he was sorry if he had transgressed in any way, and he would speak of the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The hon. Member was objected to because he knew more about this question than anybody else. He was the man who had the most to do with carrying the Sunday Closing Act through the House, and, therefore, he was the very man to inquire into how it had worked. [Cries of"Oh, oh !"] Yes; quite as much as the men who opposed it. Those who objected to the hon. Member being a Member of the Committee said—"Oh, no; do not let him come on the Committee, because he has strong opinions." Had not everyone strong opinions on some subject or other? Then they said—"But he is not impartial." In his (Sir Wilfrid Lawson's) opinion, the hon. Member for South Tyrone was the most impartial of men. One day he was writing letters in favour of the Irish tenants, and the next day he was voting with the Irish landlords. If any man could see two sides of a question bettor than his hon. Friend, he did not know where to find him. He objected altogether to the idea of keeping people off Committees because they had opinions. Everyone had opinions. If they were to take people who had no opinions at all, they would have a Committee of idiots. He did not agree with his hon. Friends in objecting to the hon. Member for South Tyrone. It was a great reflection upon the hon. Member to say that he was not fit to serve on this Committee. The Committee was not to legislate, but it was to make inquiries, to get hold of the facts, and report them to the House, and there was no one better fitted for that purpose than the hon. Member for South Tyrone. He heartily supported the hon. Member's name.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Remaining names, Mr. John O'Connor, Mr. Tuite, Mr. Biggar, and Mr. Peter Macdodald, agreed to.
1709§ MR. J. O'CONNORsaid, he desired to move that two more Members be added to the Committee.
§ MR. SPEAKERThat is not possible. There has been no Notice given of it.
§ MR. J. O'CONNORI give Notice of it now.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member can put it on the Paper in the usual way if he wishes to add to the number of the Committee, which is now 15.
§ Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.