HC Deb 27 June 1890 vol 346 cc222-9

Ordered, That the Committee do consist of 21 Members.

Mr. Arthur Balfour, Sir Algernon Borthwick, Sir Edward Clarke, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Dillwyn, Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald, Mr. Goschen, Mr. Gladstone, Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Hunter, Lord Hartington, Mr. Jennings, Mr. Labouchere, Colone. Malcolm, Mr. John Morley, Sir Stafford Northcote, nominated Members of the Committee.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That 'Mr. T. W. Russell' be one other Member of the Committee."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)

(4.52.) MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

If the House will examine the names it will see that the Committee as nominated comprises 12 supporters and nine opponents of the Government. These numbers, I believe, are based upon the proportional representation of Parties in the House in the ratio of one representative on the Committee for every 32 Members of the House. But even that does not work out quite right, because these proportions would give the Government 11¾ and the Opposition 9¼. I do not wish so much to raise any question about these figures as to object to the present system of nominating Select Committees. Up to 1880 the House was divided into two great Parties—the supporters and opponents of the Government; a Select Committee consisted of an odd number; and the Government had the odd man. In 1880, when the Liberals were in office, the Irish Members were about equally divided between opponents and sup- porters of the Government; and it was therefore agreed that the Irish of each side should have one Member on a Committee, so that the principle was still retained of allowing the Government one more Member than the Opposition. When the present Parliament was elected, an alteration had to be made, because it was found that certain gentlemen sitting on the Opposition side, and calling themselves Liberal Unionists, or some such absurd name, were to all intents and purposes supporters of the Government. It was not known at first what precisely these gentlemen were; we thought they had a merely temporary fad, and that in all probability they would very soon find salvation. We did not know that, except on one particular matter, they were disposed to support the Conservative Government; but the illusion is now dispelled, and at the present time they are really as strong supporters of Her Majesty's Government as the Conservatives.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

Hear, hear!

MR. LABOUCHERE

The hon. Member for the Bordesley Division admits the soft imputation. On account of this attitude of the Liberal Unionists it was decided to have a numerical representation of Parties on Select Committees; and the result is that the Government get a very considerable majority. It is a very different sort of a majority from that given to the Government by its having the odd man, which gives the Government a majority in case of a Committee being equally divided. In such a case the Report of the Committee would not be deemed to be so important, nor would it have such influence with the House if it were carried only by the casting vote of the Chairman. It may be said that in a Select Committee on procedure no Party question could arise; but I can conceive it possible that a Party question might arise in this Committee. Liberals may agree to the general principle that Bills should be carried over to another Session; but then would arise the question whether the principle should be applied to Bills of this Session or not. I can conceive the Liberals saying, "No; we think the matter ought to be discussed still further; we will not proceed in a hasty and impulsive fashion; we may lay down a principle, but may object to acting upon it before the coming Session." On the other hand, the Conservatives might say, "The Government have got into a terrible mess; they have had to give up one proposal, and they will have to give up their Irish Land Bill unless they can carry it forward to next Session." This is an illustration only of the way in which Party feeling might be introduced unless the HOUSB returns to the whole system of constituting a Select Committee. These Committees I am perfectly certain will not command the confidence of the country or of the House. I protest against a Committee of this kind being appointed with 12 supporters of the Government and only nine of the Government's opponents. Though I do not wish to make a personal question of it between the hon. Member for South Tyrone and the hon. Member for East Donegal, I propose to move to substitute the name of Mr. Arthur O'Connor for that of Mr. T. W. Russell, because I think the Liberal Unionists are over-represented on the Committee. If they are to be treated as Members of the Government Party the Government ought only to have 11 Members on the Committee, leaving 10 for the Opposition; and I think if this principle were adopted the decision of the Committee would be more likely to commend itself to the House.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the name of "Mr. T. W. Russell," in order to insert the name of "Mr. Arthur O'Connor,"—(Mr. Labouchere,)

—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the name of 'Mr. T. W. Russell' stand part of the Question."

*(5.5.) MR. W. H. SMITH

I understand the Motion of the hon. Gentleman to be that the practice of Parliament for the last 10 years shall be departed from now, in order that the House may return to a practice which was condemned by the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. I prefer not to rest on my own authority in matters of this kind; and I will quote a high authority, and one which has guided the House for a good many years. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian made the following statement in July last:— It is undoubtedly the fact that some time ago the practice prevailed according to winch it was usual, and I believe invariable, at least in Committees of smaller size, that a majority of one should be conceded to the majority of the day. I must say that I never admired the plan. I always thought the Rule a bad Rule, and I was always glad to avail myself of an opportunity of modifying it and altering it according to the practice which prevailed for a good many years before that Rule, and which has prevailed during the existence of the present Parliament. That is to say, that any Committee of the House should be made—especially when there is a matter of very great public interest, importance, and delicacy—as carefully and as nearly as may be the accurate representation of the sentiments of this House. This is a question of great public interest, importance, and delicacy, and I think I should have the complete support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian on this Motion, as the result of it would be to make the Committee an accurate representation of the views of the House. I am sure the Government and the House are very glad to hear the hon. Member for Northampton say that he will approach his duties in the Committee without any Party feeling; but bearing in mind the infirmity of human nature, and especially of Members of Parliament, it is very difficult indeed to find any question which does not become a Party question when hon. Members of this House come together. I think I am accurate when I represent the hon. Gentleman as saying that, while the Liberal Party may possibly assent to the principle, they may think it necessary to protest against its application at a particular time.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I only said it was possible.

*MR. W. H. SMITH

It is for the Committee, and especially for the unprejudiced Members of the hon. Gentleman's own Party, when they find themselves in that Committee, to speak for themselves in such a matter; but it is for the House to consider whether a principle agreed to by a Committee shall or shall not be applied to a particular Bill at a particular time.

MR. LABOUCHERE

The right hon. Gentleman is rather unfair in putting words into my mouth. I suggested that the Conservative majority might act on Party lines.

*MR. W. H. SMITH

I should be sorry to put any suggestion into the mouth of the hon. Member. I am not desirous of entering on Party questions. I believe that the Committee will approach the consideration of the question which is referred to them with a full sense of its importance, and with no prepossessions. The question which the hon. Member has raised is whether we shall revert to the former practice prevailing before 1880, or whether we shall adhere to a practice which has existed now under three successive Governments and in three successive Parliaments, and which is supported by the very high authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. I believe that the course which the right hon. Gentleman has so consistently supported is the wisest and the fairest course for Parliament to adopt, and that a fair representation for all Parties in this House is the best method by which we can arrive at a successful result of the delegation of important duties to a Select Committtee.

(5.12.) SIR W. HARCOURT (Derby)

I regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian is not here. What I have to say is, of course, that I am in entire accordance with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian has said on a former occasion. With reference to the rule of the Government only having a majority of one, I agree with what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian last year. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton must remember that it is important—and never more so than at the present time—to have regard not only to the rights of minorities, but also to the future interests of majorities. It is extremely inconvenient, as we have experienced in former times, for a Government to have only a majority of one in a Select Committee on an important question, especially if the Government have a great majority in the House and in the country. I do not object to the Government having in Select Committees a majority proportionate to their majority in the House, and this principle has been very much recognised in Grand Committees. No doubt great difficulties have been introduced by the novelty of having sectional Parties in the House. That, in my opinion, is a great Parliamentary misfortune. It was an unfortunate creation of the last General Election, and I hope that the next Election will sweep those sections away. Of course, it is extremely awkward to deal with the constitution of Committees when a certain body of Members are calling themselves by one name and acting under another. It is an embarrassing condition of things unknown in the history of former Parliaments, and we must make temporary arrangements to meet what we may hope to be a temporary evil. This is not a Party question; I do not see why Party considerations should arise in it; and I am confident that it will not be settled by a Party majority either in the Committee or in the House. It will be utterly impossible to deal with so grave a question as is involved in this proposed Constitutional change unless by general consent, both in the House and the Committee. Therefore, I do not, in reference to this particular Committee, concern myself very much about counting heads or reckoning upon close majorities. Though the House has admitted the question of proportionate numbers upon Committees in accordance with the state of Parties in the House, I would point out that the considerable changes that have taken place since the arrangement as to proportions was made have left Members on this side of the House not altogether satisfied, and they will not acquiesce in thos3 proportions in the future. They feel that they are entitled to a larger share of representation on the Committees than they were at the beginning of this Parliament. I am not surprised that some dissatisfaction has arisen on account of the way in which those who were termed Liberal Unionists have been put forward in the matter. I think it was very unwise that opportunity should have been taken at this particular moment and on this particular question to give to that fraction a numerical force on the Committee to which they are not entitled, and I can well understand that Irish Members below the Gangway will not be satisfied with that course. I think, too, the House will notice with surprise that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Thanet Division has not been nominated for the Committee, seeing that he has expressed independent opinions on the matter. I feel that I cannot altogether agree with the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Northampton that we should revert to the old system. I do not wish, however, to disturb the arrangement that has been made between both sides of the House, and therefore I feel bound to support it. I do hope that nothing that takes place now or hereafter will give a Party aspect to a Committee of so important a character.

(5.21.) MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

The First Lord of the Treasury, quoting the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, has said that in his opinion the Committee of this House should be representative of all sections of opinion in the House. We think that this Committee is not representative of one section, and I hold that the Irish Party have grave reason to complain that they are not fairly represented on the Committee. I have no desire to quarrel with the principle that the Government should have a majority on the Committee proportionate to their majority in the House; but in this case the Government must admit that they and the Liberal Unionists are one Party, or they would have no ground for the position which has been taken up by the Leader of the House in regard to this Committee. On the other hand, the Liberal Unionists must accept the position that they are not an independent Party, but a portion of the Tory Party. What claim, again, have the Liberal Unionists to three Members on the Committee, exclusive of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, although a Member of the Government, claims to be a Liberal Unionist? The Irish Members number 86, and the Liberal Unionists only 68, yet the former have only two Members on the Committee, while the latter have three. That is most unfair, according to the principle of proportionate representation laid down by the First Lord of the Treasury. When we look into the question narrowly there seems to be a particular reason for this. The object of the proposal appears to be to appoint a Committee, not so much to examine into the procedure of the House in order to ascertain how business may be facilitated, as to see how the passing of the Irish Land Bill may be facilitated. For it will be seen, on close inspection, that all those nominated to represent the Government and the Liberal Unionists on the Committee are known to be in favour of the Irish Land Purchase Bill, and of holding it over to another Session. Whoso names appear in the list? Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald, Mr. Goschen, Lord Hartington, and Mr. T. W. Russell. All these are known as active supporters of the Land Bill, and it is a remarkable fact that no hon. Members who object to the proposal, whether Conservatives or Liberal Unionists, or who belong to the independent section of the Tory Party, are included. The Leader of the House has spoken of the freedom of action that should be allowed to the Committee; but, in my opinion, a deliberate attempt is being made by the Government, by nominating Members whose opinions are well known to be in a particular direction, to secure a Report that will be in favour of the Irish Land Purchase Bill, and of hanging it up until another Session. That, I contend, is another reason why the Irish Party should insist on the principle laid down by the Government of a fair numercial representation on the Committee, and I submit we are entitled to use every exertion to secure that this Committee is made representative of all sections of the House. For these reasons I most strongly and confidently support the Motion of my hon. Friend.

Question put, "That Thomas Wallis Russell be one of the Members of the said Committee."

(5.30.) The House divided:—Ayes 273; Noes 163.—(Div. List, No. 164.)

Mr. T. W. Russell nominated one other Member of the Committee.

Mr. Sexton, Mr. John Talbot, and Mr. Whitbread nominated other Members of the Committee.

Ordered, That Seven he the quorum.

Ordered, That the Reports of the Select Committees of the House on Public Business of the Sessions 1861, 1869, and 1878, and the Return "Parliamentary Proceedings," of the present Session, he referred to the Select Committee.