HC Deb 20 April 1891 vol 352 cc922-4
MR. NORRIS (Tower Hamlets, Lime-house)

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it is by intention or mistake that, whereas the dock labourers are directly represented on the Labour Commission by one of their leaders, the great Dock Companies and Wharves of London, who control property of immense value and employ nearly 100,000 men daily, are not represented on the Commission; and whether he will consider the advisability of such a nomination?

MR. W. H. SMITH

I am quite aware that no representative of the Dock Companies has been placed on the Labour Commission; but I am confident that their interests will be fully looked after by the members of the Commission. It was impossible for the Government to place on the Commission representatives of all the interests which were concerned in the inquiry.

MR. NORRIS

May I ask whether there will not be a representative of the shipping interest of London?

MR. W. H. SMITH

It is impossible to place upon this Commission representatives of every interest in every locality. If we had attempted anything of the sort the Commission would have become a Congress, and it would be impossible to expect a satisfactory result. Any hope, indeed, of such a result would have been compromised if we had done as my hon. Friend suggests.

MR. COBB

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the only reason which the Government had for not recommending to Her Majesty the name of Mr. Michael Davitt as a member of the Royal Commission on Labour was that he was a Republican; whether he can give specific references to speeches or writings of Mr. Davitt showing that he holds Republican opinions; whether there is any precedent of an appointment by Her Majesty of any person holding Republican opinions upon a Royal Commission, or as a Member of Her Majesty's Government; and whether the Government will re-consider their decision, with a view of still recommending Her Majesty to appoint Mr. Davitt a member of the Commission?

COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh N.)

Before my right hon. Friend answers that question, may I ask him whether it is not the case that Mr. Michael Davitt was tried, convicted, and sentenced to a term of penal servitude for felony?

MR. W. H. SMITH

I will answer the question of the hon. Member for the Rugby Division first. I am not aware whether the hon. Member has any authority for the allegations contained in his question. All the communications which passed with reference to Mr. Michael Davitt were confidential. The evidence given by Mr. Michael Davitt before the Special Commission, and the recitals and the judgment of the Commission with regard to him were carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government, and they did not think, with those facts before them, that Mr. Davitt was qualified for appointment to the Labour Commission. In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I may say that I believe Mr. Davitt was tried and sentenced for treason felony.

MR. COBB

With respect to the query put to me by the right hon. Gentleman, I may say that the question has been altered since I put it down on the Paper. I asked him whether—

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! I struck the words out myself, and for this reason. The hon. Gentleman proposed to ask, " Whether it was true, as stated." That is a form which is sometimes adopted by hon. Members; but I think the responsibility attaches to an hon. Member when he puts a question that he should not simply take up a rumour, but should assume the responsibility, and ask whether or not a certain fact is true.

MR. COBB

Perhaps I may be in order, as the right hon. Gentleman has raised the question, in saying that I saw the statement in one of the morning papers—I believe it was the Standard, but I am not sure. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to ask him this — whether, to avoid misapprehension, he will say whether any of the proceedings before the Special Commission influenced the Government in refusing to recommend Mr. Michael Davitt as a member of the Commission?

MR. W. H. SMITH

I have answered the question upon the Paper.

DR. TANNER

May I ask whether the House is to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that Mr. Davitt, having served his term of penal servitude for treason felony, is to be subject to future disqualification?

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order!