§ On the Order for the nomination of the Select Committee on British South Africa,
§ *MR. SPEAKERsaid: The hon. and learned Member for North Louth has on the Paper an Amendment to the Government's Motion to the effect that the Committee do consist of 17 members. I think it would he better if he moved that first as a separate Motion.
MR. T. M. HEALYmoved, "That the Select Committee on British South Africa do consist of 17 members "He had no wish to raise any contentions. Put it would not be contested that the subject under consideration was one in which the Irish Members had a valid ground to intervene. The question of Africa was one in which they had taken an interest for very many years; and the question of the treatment of Catholics in the Transvaal greatly concerned them. In any committee of 15 members on a subject in which the Irish Members were interested it had always been considered that the Irish Party were entitled to two Members. 567 The hon. Baronet, who proposed to give the Irish Party only one Member, no doubt did so in a fair spirit; but no other Committee likely to be appointed for a very long time to come would have the same amount of importance for Ireland as this. The Boers were absolutely opposed to any concession to the Catholics. They refused to allow a Catholic to act even as a scavenger in Pretoria, and while he admired the gallant stand of the Boers—
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The only question before the House is whether this Committee shall consist of 17 members. [Laughter.]
MR. T. M. HEALYYes, Sir; and with all submission to your ruling I was going to suggest a reason why the Irish Members as Catholics were entitled to more than one member on this Committee.
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman is certainly entitled to go into that question, but not into the opinions or action of the Boer Government. [Laugher.]
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that perhaps he had wandered somewhat from the point. But he held that in a Committee of 15 members the Irish Party were entitled to two members. They had only one on this Committee, having lost the second member owing to a concession made by the hon. Member for East Mayo to the Opposition, and that being so, he thought the best way out of the difficulty was to enlarge the Committee to 17 members.
§ MR. DILLONsaid the hon. Member for North Louth was slightly wrong in his arithmetic. The Irish Party in their present position were not entitled to two members on a Committee of 15. Time was when they were 85 men of one Party, and when their right to two men out of 15 was recognised. But now the Irish party for whom he was entitled to speak consisted of 71 members—
§ MR. DILLONI wish the hon. Member for Louth could speak for Irish Nationalists of all sections.
§ MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (Kilkenny)Can you? [Laughter.]
§ MR. DILLONI "was just going to say that I cannot. But can the hon. Member for North Louth?
§ MR. PATRICK O'BRIENI agree with every word he said. [Laughter.]
§ MR. DILLONsaid that, unfortunately he could only speak for 71 Irish Members, and as such, on a Committee of 15 members, he was only entitled to ask for one member and the thirteen-twenty-second part of a man. [Laughter.] It was true that in the matter of the Belfast and Derry Committees the Leader of the Opposition had made a concession to the Irish Party by which their representation on those Committees was enlarged; and, acting on the principle of give and take, he had conceded the fractional part of the second man the Irish Party were entitled to on the Committee to the Liberal party. He disputed the assertion of the hon. Member for North Louth that this Committee was for the Irish people the most important Committee that had ever been appointed. He thought the Belfast Committee was of far greater importance to Ireland. What had the treatment of the Catholics in the Transvaal to do with the Jameson raid or the administration of the Chartered Company? [Mr. T. M. HEALY: "Oh, oh!"] The hon. Member for North Louth based his argument on the supposition that the Irish Members numbered 83.
§ MR. DILLONThat may be the experience of the hon. Member, but it is not mine. [Ministerial cheers and laughter.] I hope his words may come true before long. Continuing, the hon. Member said the hon. Member for North Louth wanted the hon. Member for East Donegal added to the Committee, while the Parnellite Members proposed to add the hon. Member for Waterford. Here was an instance of the indivisibility and oneness of the Irish Party. [Ministerial laughter.] This was a condition of things he regretted, and nothing would give him greater pleasure than if he (or any other man) could claim representation upon the Committee on behalf of all the Irish Nationalist Members. If the Government stood by their arrangement he should support them. If they increased the Committee to 17 he would not oppose it.
§ MR. P. O'BRIENsupported the Amendment, and hoped the hon. Member for East Mayo might see his way to 569 join with the hon. Member for North Louth in trying to secure full representation upon the Committee for the Irish Party. Let the hon. Member for East Mayo, who at the last General Election gave away one of the Irish seats to the Liberal party, tear himself away from the Liberal party and assert the right of the Irish Members.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid it would of course be impertinent of him to interfere in any way with the difference of opinion that had arisen between the leaders of the Irish Nationalist Party. He had only to express the view of the Government on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth. In doing that he wished to say that he agreed with the premisses of the hon. Member for North Louth. They were two. In the first place, the Irish Party had as great an interest as any other section of the House in South African affairs. He had pointed out that they had a special interest to which he had referred. With that he agreed. He agreed, also, in his statement that, according to any arithmetical interpretation of the portions of the House, the portion allotted to them on the Committee was less than their full portion. But that was a matter which must be discussed separately, and did not necessarily involve any increase in the numbers of the Committee, because the point of the hon. Member was that on a Committee of 15 the Irish Party, as a whole, could fairly claim larger representation, and it was not necessary to increase the Committee to 17 to make that point good. When, in the first instance, he proposed the Committee, he expressed the opinion, which he believed was the opinion of the vast majority of the House, that in a matter of this kind it was undesirable to commit the Inquiry to a large Committee, and that the smallest possible Committee which fairly represented the House would be the best thing; and when he stated his own opinion was in favour of a Committee of 13 he did not hear many voices raised that that would be too many and that 11 would be sufficient. Upon the representation of the Leader of the Opposition that it would be more convenient and give a better representation if the Committee were enlarged to 15, he agreed that the Committee should 570 be 15, having already indicated his willingness to do so in moving it. He thought that was as far as the Government ought to be called upon to go. ["Hear, hear!"] He considered it was practically an arrangement between the two sides of the House, and on that ground it was impossible for him to consent to any increase in that number. ["Hear, hear!"] The Committee, therefore, they proposed to the House was a Committee of 15. They had in arranging a Committee to deal with the representatives of the Opposition as a whole. It had never been customary to deal with separate sections. They officially took no notice of any divisions that might exist in the ranks of the Opposition. Looking at it from that point of view there was no doubt that the proportion was as accurate as could be made and was, on the whole, against the Government rather than in their favour. The exact proportion of a Committee of 15 was 44 2–3rds to one. Taking the number of the Government and their supporters at 408, that would give them 9 6–44ths. It would give to the Opposition as a whole 5 38–44ths. So that the Opposition in taking six had 6–44ths more than they were entitled to, and the Government in taking nine had 6–44ths less than they were entitled to. [Laughter.] He did not think it was for him to examine into the proportions into which the six Members due to the Opposition should be divided. That was a domestic matter which, he thought, should be discussed at home—[laughter]—and he really did not venture to offer any opinion upon it. He thought he had done all he was called upon to do. He had shown in a Committee of 15 that nine for the Government was less than their proper proportion. [" Hear, hear!"]
§ SIR W. HARCOURTagreed that in the case of the arrangement of the Committee the usual course had been taken, which was that the Leader of the Government should endeavour to arrive at an agreement which was likely to give satisfaction to the House. He came to the agreement with the Leader of the House, whom he was surprised not to see present, and, therefore, he supported the list as put down.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINI beg the right hon Gentleman's pardon. I do 571 not at all deny that the Leader of the Government was present when we came to that agreement, but he came to that agreement with me. [Cheers.]
§ SIR W. HARCOURTIf I may say so, this is a domestic matter. [Laughter.]
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINNo, that is not the case. It is a matter of fact. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman is trying to separate me from my right hon. Friend. We are absolutely agreed. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman has no right to comment upon the absence of my right hon. Friend who is absent, as he knows, because of important business, at the present moment—when I am present to answer for him. [Cheers.]
§ SIR W. HARCOURTmade the observation because he saw the Leader of the House in the Chamber not ten minutes ago. It was quite true he discussed the matter with the Colonial Secretary, but he asked that a final decision should be given, and that decision was afterwards given to him by the Leader of the House. Under these circumstances he felt bound—and he should fulfil that obligation—to maintain the list of the Committee exactly as it was settled both in regard to its numbers and constitution. These arrangements could only be made in that way, and could only be carried out by both Parties adhering to them. ["Hear, hear!"] He should therefore vote with the right hon. Gentleman in support of the numbers he had proposed.
§ Question put, "That the Select Committee on British South Africa do consist of Seventeen Members "—(Mr. T. M. Healy)—put and negatived.
§ The Attorney General, Mr. Bigham, and Mr. Blake nominated Members of the Committee.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Sydney Buxton be one other Member of the Committee: "—(Sir William Walrond.)
572§ MR. P. O'BRIENmoved to substitute the name of Mr. J. Redmond, on the ground that the Irish Party as a whole had not got proper representation.
MR. T. M. HEALYremarked that the proposition had been laid down by the hon. Member for East Mayo that he had no concern with the representation of Ireland as a whole in that House, and that his duty was concerned with his own special flock. If so, he would find that flock growing smaller and smaller. [Laughter.] He would appeal to the Tory Party, as Ireland was admittedly, on the word and faith of the Colonial Secretary, entitled to a second Member on this Committee, to vote for this Motion. It was a matter of indifference to him, as an Irishman, whether the name be that of Mr. John Redmond or Mr. Arthur O'Connor. The point he took was that Nationalist Ireland was entitled to two Members. The first name that came up was Mr. John Redmond, and without any hesitatien he should support that name. Let the hon. Member for Mayo, if he pleased, vote for the restriction of Irish rights on this Committee, and support the name of Mr. Sydney Buxton as against that of Mr. John Redmond. That was a matter entirely for him, but those who had taken the point that on a Committee of fifteen Members Ireland was entitled to two took up a position that he conceived to be impregnable, and he appealed to the House as a whole to give them that fair play which the hon. Member for Mayo sought to deny them. In this matter the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Irish Party had never consulted his colleagues. He had made his bargain without any consultation whatever with his colleagues, and he had no business whatever to give away the numerical rights of Ireland in a matter of this kind.
§ *MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member that the question before the House was not the number of the Committee, but whether the name of Mr. John Redmond or that of Mr. Sydney Buxton should stand.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he would endeavour to strictly obey Mr. Speaker's ruling. He supported the name of Mr. John Redmond on the ground that it was the business of any Irish Member to take into consideration their position as Nationalists, and not their position as sectionalists. [Laughter.] If the hon. Member for Mayo spoke as a sectionalist he was no doubt not in a position to demand that any more than one Member should be appointed, but if he spoke on behalf of Nationalist Ireland he was entitled to press for more than one. Whatever might be the hon. Member's arrangement with the Opposition, he should cordially divide the House in favour of the hon. Member for Water ford.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid he only rose to remind the House once more that in these matters the Government dealt with the Opposition as a whole, and that, in accordance with the usual practice in such cases, they received from them their nomination and they did not go behind them under these circumstances. They had received from them in the usual way these names. They proposed to support these names, and if they were to do otherwise they would destroy altogether the foundation on which these Committees had been for a long while appointed. [Cheers.]
§ MR. THOMAS BAYLEY (Derby shire, Chesterfield)said that Ireland, Scotland and Wales had a little over 200 Members of the 600 Members in that House, and on that basis they should have five Members, quite regardless of party, on the Committee.
§ *MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member's observations would have been more in point on the question of the number of the Committee. They were not in point on this Motion.
§ MR. BAYLEYsaid it was perfectly clear that Ireland was entitled to two Members; and whether they were Nationalist Members or Members from the other side of the House was a do- 574 mestic arrangement. As a matter of fact, Ireland, as a whole, had been deprived of one Member, and Scotland had been deprived of one Member.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 181; Noes, 20.—(Division List, No. 410.)
§ On the motion "That Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman be one other Member of the Committee,"
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he did not propose to raise any opposition to this name—that of a most respected Member of the House—but he desired to propose Mr. Arthur O'Connor, a member of his own Party, upon grounds he need not explain. He gathered, however, it would not be in order to make that motion except as against the name of some gentleman who was to be nominated. The last name on the list was that of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. George Wyndham) and while he had no objection to the hon. Gentleman personally he would move to substitute for his name that of Mr. Arthur O'Connor.
§ *MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member could not move to add a 16th member without first carrying a Motion that the number of members of the Committee should be 16. He could not allow a Motion that the number should be 16, because he took the decision of the House against 17 as being substantially a decision in favour of 15. If he allowed a motion to increase the number to 16 he would have to allow one in favour of 18, 19, or any other number. Therefore, if the hon. Member wished to propose a certain name, his only course was to move to leave out some name already suggested.
Sir Henry Campbell - Bannerman, Mr. Secretary Chamberlain, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Cripps, Sir William Hart Dyke, Mr. John Ellis, Sir William Harcourt, and Mr. Jackson nominated other Members of the Committee.
§ On the question "That Mr. Labouchere be one other Member of the Committee,"
§ MR. HUBERT DUNCOMBE (Cumberland, Egremont)moved, "That the name of Mr. Labouchere be omitted and that of Mr. John Redmond inserted "—a proposition that was received with some cheers on the Ministerial side below the gangway.
§ Question put, "That Mr. Labouchere be one other member of the Committee."—(Sir William Walrond.)
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 148; Noes, 48.—(Division List, No. 411.)
§ Motion made, "That Mr. Wharton be one other member of the Committee."—(Sir William Walrond.)
§ *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTappealed to the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion. It was important that this should be an impartial Committee. The Committee as a whole would, he thought, be rather disposed to carry out the views of the Colonial Office, which he did not entirely share. [Cheers and laughter.] Of the few independent members of the Committee whom they could rely on, he thought that the hon. Member for Ripon was one, and therefore he appealed to the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion and oppose some other more objectionable member of the Committee—[laughter]—than the hon. Member for Ripon.
§ Question put, "That Mr. Wharton be one other member of the Committee."—(Sir William Walrond.)
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 184; Noes, 10.—(Division List, No. 412).
§ On the Motion "That Mr. George Wyndham be one other member of the Committee,"
576§ MR. PHILIP STANHOPE (Burnley), in whose name a Motion stood on the Paper to substitute the name of Mr. Arnold Forster for that of Mr. George Wyndham, said that the object with which he had put the Amendment down would be obvious to the House. It would be absurd to object to the presence on the Committee of gentlemen who were against the Company, if gentlemen who had expressed opinions favourable to the Company were allowed to serve. Therefore he thought it was proper to make the same objection to the name of the hon. Member for Dover as had been made to the names of Members holding opposite views. He proposed also to give further representation to opinion from Ireland. The House, however, had shown a very distinct desire to maintain the present representation of all opinions, and therefore he did not propose to press the Amendment.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he was very glad that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to take a Division on his Amendment, as there was no gentleman he would like to see on the Committee more than the hon. Member for Dover. He hoped that the divisions which had taken place would be, if not a warning, at least an instruction to Gentlemen on the other side of the House that they had not heard the last of the matter. This Committee could not act this Session, and must be reappointed next Session, when he should certainly take the same action he had taken to-day. While saying that, he cordially supported the Motion that the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Dover, should be a member of the Committee.
§ Motion agreed to, and
§ Ordered, that Seven be the quorum.
§ Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 20th day of July last, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
§ House Adjourned at Ten minutes before Twelve o'clock.