HC Deb 06 March 1899 vol 67 cc1372-5 Question proposed— That Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. John Ellis, Mr. Hanbury, Mr. James William Lowther, and Mr. Wharton be nominated Members of the Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords on the Permanent Staff of both Houses of Parliament; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records; that three be a quorum."—(Sir It William Walrond.)
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)

I oppose the appointment of this Committee, and on various grounds, geographical—

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order ! A Resolution has been passed that a Committee on the Permanent Staff of the Lords and Commons be appointed in conjunction with a Committee of the House of Lords. The only question now is the nomination of the members of the Committee. The honourable Member can object to any name on the list. The question is that Sir Charles Dilke be a Member of the Houses of Lords and Commons Permanent Staff Joint Committee.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

In order to put myself completely in order l oppose the nomination of my right honourable Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, although, at the same time, I do not think there is any person in the whole House who would be more competent. The reason why I oppose the nomination is the there is no Irish Member proposed to be appointed on the Committee. The right honourable Gentleman seems to imagine that Ireland is non-existent, and that Irish Members are non-existent. On a question of this nature Irish Members should be represented on the Committee, and I am simply amazed that no Irish Member is to be on it. I would be very glad if the right honourable Gentleman would give some explanation.

SIR W. WALROND (Devon, Tiverton)

I am not responsible for the nominations.

SIR C. DILKE (, Forest of Dean) Gloucester

So far as I am concerned I would be very glad to give way in favour of some other honourable Member.

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order!

Question put, and agreed to.

*MR. SPEAKER

The Question is that Mr. John Ellis be a Member of the Houses of Lords and Commons Permanent Staff joint Committee.

MR. DILLON

Can only one Member speak on each nomination? What I should like to draw attention to is the extraordinary principle which appears to have been adopted in the nomination of this most important Committee. It is a matter in which the Irish Members have taken a very important part, and I venture to say that but for the attitude of the Irish Members the Committee would not have been appointed. What strikes me as most extraordinary in the present instance is that actually on this Committee there is no Irish Member, no Scotch Member, and no Welsh Member. It is the case of the predominant partner with a vengence. If it had not been for the Scotch, the Welsh, and the Irish Members there would have been no such Committee appointed. The Debates on which the Committee took origin were maintained almost wholly by the Irish, and Scotch Members, and I say it is a very strange proceeding that this Committee should be nominated, and that no representative of either Wales, Scotland, or Ireland should be upon it. I venture to suggest to the Secretary to the Treasury, or whoever is responsible for the nominations, that he should allow the matter to stand over in order to see if a more reasonable arrangement might not be come to. None of us have any personal objection to the Gentlemen who are nominated on the Committee. They appear to be admirably chosen, but there is no reason why the Committee should not be enlarged. It is a strange thing that so great a departure should have been made from the usual custom of the House.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

Is there to be no explanation

Question put, and agreed to.

Question proposed— That Mr. Hanbury be a Member of the Houses of Lords and Commons Permanent Staff Joint Committee."—(Mr. Pirie.)
*MR. PIRIE (Aberdeen, N.)

I do not at all desire to take away any credit which honourable Friends from Ireland may claim as to the origin of the appointment of this Committee, but I would remind the House that Scotland is entitled to some credit for the appointment of this Committee. At the risk of being accused, perhaps, of pertinacity, I addressed at least four Questions last Session to the First Lord of the Treasury before I obtained the appointment of this Committee. This questioning began in May and was continued till July, but the Committee was not actually appointed till the month of August, at the very close of the Session, and so a whole year was lost. I therefore confidently maintain that Scottish representation had a great deal to say in the appointment of this Committee. This fact at the same time only brings out the more strongly the absolute one-sidedness of the composition of the Committee as now moved. I think that all Nationalities should be represented on the Committee which deals with such an important affair as this. I therefore beg to move the adjournment of the Debate, in order that the Government may possibly see their way to remedy this state of matters.

*MR. SPEAKER

Under the Standing Orders a Motion for the adjournment of the Debate cannot be made, but I may propose to the House an adjournment if I think proper. I think that under the circumstances of the case, and as there seems to be some misunderstanding, causing opposition to the nomination of the Committee, it would be better if the Question were put, that the Debate be now adjourned.

SIR W. WALROND

The House has just nominated two honourable Members from the other side of the House. The remaining three come from this (the Government) side of the House. In these circumstances, I adhere to the names that I have put down.

MR. DILLON

We are surely entitled to some more explanation than we have got.

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The Question is, that the Debate be now adjourned.

Question put, and agreed to.

The Debate stood adjourned.