§ Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [7th May], "That Major Dunne be one other Member of the Select Committee on the Housing of the Working Classes Acts Amendment Bill."
§ Question again proposed.
1275§ MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)said that the Labour Party had no personal or political objection to the members of this Committee, whose names they were now opposing; they were objecting to them on a question of principle, and not upon any other ground whatever. He hoped the House, in considering this matter, would keep that fact well in mind. He wished to say, as representing those who sat on the Labour Benches, that in the past they thought the Patronage Secretary had, on the whole, met their claims fairly, and they attributed no blame to him upon that score. The action they were taking in reference to this particular Committee was based upon two grounds. The Labour Members who sat on those benches had been returned to Parliament to represent certain definite principles; they were entitled to representation upon all important Committees, and particularly upon those Committees directly affecting the working classes. That was a frank statement of their claim. Why had this particular Committee been so constituted as to exclude a Member of the Labour Party? The Secretary to the Treasury had admitted that if the Committee had consisted of fifteen Members, the Labour Party would have had a Member upon it. In a matter of such importance as this Committee was appointed to consider, the matter should have been so arranged as to entitle the Labour Party to be represented upon it. The appointment of such a Committee was not, and should not be, a matter of vulgar fractions. He and his friends claimed to be entitled to representation on all Committees concerning the working classes. From whom had objection come against the Labour Members being represented 1276 on the Committee? Had the Whips on the Opposition side or the Irish Whips made any objection? If no objection had been raised, then he should expect the Patronage Secretary to explain why the Labour Party had been so excluded. They said that, as a Labour Party, paid by Labour organisations, and directly representing Labour opinions, they were entitled to representation on a Committee of this kind. For that reason they would divide the House against the name now proposed.
§ * MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)said that after what had taken place in reference to the Motion before the House he thought the House would not consider him unreasonable if he claimed their indulgence for a short time. It was a matter of no concern to him what his hon. friends chose to label themselves, but, when they proceeded to rule those who like himself sat on that side of the House as outside the rank of Labour representatives [Cries of "No"], then he thought they were justified in protesting against such an act of excommunication. What special right had his hon. friends on the other side to be considered as the representatives of Labour that they who sat on the Ministerial side of the House had not an equal claim to? They were trade unionists, they stood at the head of large Labour organisations which they had built up. Their claim in both these respects was infinitely superior to the claim of some of those who claimed to be members of the Labour Party. They had been workmen. They had worked in the mine and in the factory side by side with those who sent them to this House. They were paid, and he was not ashamed to admit it, as hon. Gentleman claimed 1277 to be paid on the other side. He knew it was the fashion amongst some of his hon. friends like the hon. Member for Leicester to write them down as nondescript Labour Members, but he defied him or any other member of the Labour Party to cite a claim as unique as his own to be regarded as a Labour representative. He was not ashamed to admit that twenty-one years ago he was earning his bread as a working miner when the delegates representing the constituency which he now had the honour to represent in this House asked him to leave his work to represent them here, which he had done ever since. When any one of his hon. friends opposite could show a claim as unique as that, then they might claim in a special sense to be Labour representatives. His hon. friend the Member for Woolwich had said that those men who sat on the Liberal side and claimed—;let them mark the word—;to be Labour Members were Liberals pure and simple He ventured to say that even if they did claim that it was as bona fide as the claim of any hon. Member opposite. It was a matter of public notoriety that his hon. friend the Member for Wooliwch for many months in the last Parliament refused to sign the pledge of the Independent Labour Party. Yet was there any one of the Labour Members who regarded his hon. friend as less of a Labour representative because of that? If the signing of a pledge was to be the credential for becoming a member of the Labour Party then they would get many men whose hands had never been soiled with honest toil ready and willing to sign. He, therefore, entered his strongest possible protest to the argument that because they sat on the Ministerial 1278 side of the House they were not entitled to be regarded as Labour representatives. One of the Members of the proposed Committee, the hon. Member for Birkenhead, had as noble a record as a Labour representative and a trade unionist as it was possible for any man to have. In addition to that he had exceptional qualifications for service upon the Committee now in question by reason of the work in which he had been engaged so directly and efficiently for many years past. He had devoted his time more closely to the question of the housing of the working classes than probably any other Labour representative in the House, and in nominating him to sit upon this Committee the Government had acted wisely and well. He would ask his hon. friends to remember that on Thursday last week they were given a place on a Committee to deal with the question of the taxation of land values in Scotland and no objection was raised, and he thought Labour representatives who sat on the Ministerial side were entitled on this occasion to have a member of their own group.
§ MR. CROOKS (Woolwich)We welcome you.
§ * MR. FENWICKsaid he was glad that claim was admitted, but if they claimed representation on Party lines his hon. friends opposite were only entitled as a separate and distinct Party to claim representation in proportion to their numbers. He understood the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil went one better than that, and claimed in addition representation in consequence of the special position which he and his friends occupied as representing Labour constituencies, His hon. friend could not claim it on 1279 both grounds. If he was content to take it on purely Party lines he must take his fair representation, and if the Government was not prepared to extend the Committee then he would have to be content with the fair representation in proportion to the number of the Party he controlled. But when the hon. Gentleman went outside and claimed it on special grounds his position was no stronger than, if indeed it was as strong as, the claim of his hon. friends who sat on the Ministerial side. There were a number of members of the so-called Labour Party who were trade union leaders and who stood at the head of great trade organisations, but what was true of those Gentlemen was not equally true of every member of the Party, and for them to attempt to rule others outside the pale of Labour representation was, in his opinion, sufficient justification for rising as he did to-night to enter a protest.
§ * MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe)said he was very sorry that the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division should have treated the matter as a question between the representatives of Labour on one side of the House and the representatives of Labour on the other. He was perfectly sure that if he knew the true history of this question he would have spoken differently. On no single occasion had they ever raised any objection to or questioned in any way any nomination from amongst the hon. Gentleman's friends on any Committee. If there was an issue between himself and his friends and some other Party in the House, it was between them and the Patronage Secretary and the Party on whose behalf he acted. In these circumstances he thought the question raised in the speech to which they had 1280 just listened would have been better raised round a table among themselves. He had not the privilege of listening to the speech of his hon. friend the Member for Woolwich, but he had read it, and he agreed with every word he said. It was as well that they should know where they were in this matter. What was the position? The Patronage Secretary had decided for himself how many Parties there were in the House. He and his friends refused to accept the decision of the Patronage Secretary as to what constituted a Party. That was the whole question, and they did not accept the suggestion that one of the members of the group opposite with which they were not connected represented them on this Committee. What he should have preferred would have been that the Party to which he belonged had been told that they were entitled or that they were not entitled to representation. He hoped there would be no further cavilling as between what was known as the trade union Party and the Party with which he acted. The Independent Labour Party did not sit in the House as supporters of the Government, and did not accept the Government whips. That was the clean division between them and those who sat as supporters of the Government, and the House ought to recognise it. He was exceedingly sorry that the issue had been raised between the two sections It had never been raised in that form by himself and his friends. The Government had chosen to select certain men first from one group and then from the other to serve on these Committees. It might happen that under such a system they would be without representation on some of the most important Committees, and they would never accept such a 1281 position. They sat in the House as a separate Party; they did not accept the Government whips, and they claimed sufficient independence to entitle them to representation on every Committee. If the Government did not think the Labour Party strong enough to claim the right of representation, then let them say so at once, and the Labour Party would see where they were. Although at present their numbers were small, they might come back sixty or eighty strong. Did the Government consider thirty Members a "miserable minority"? In many ways it was effective. If the Government gave them a representation of one, it did not follow that that Member would oppose the Government. In the House they had always treated all questions from a public point of view. They were independent, and in nine cases out of ten they voted with the Government. The Government would do wisely to recognise them and not to set them in competition against their friends who sat on the Government side of the House.
§ MR. BRACE (Glamorganshire, S.)said this discussion was to him one of the most painful experiences of his life, and he would not have interposed were it not that his hon. friend the Member for the Clitheroe Division had failed to appreciate the position of the trade union group of Labour Members. It seemed to be thought that, because the trade union group received the whips of the Liberal Party, they were, of necessity, supporters of the Government under all circumstances and were controlled by the Liberal Party. That was simple nonsense. The receiving of the Party whips was a small, and to him an unimportant, matter. The real touchstone as to whether they 1282 were supporters of the Government was not in the reception of the whips, but their action in the division lobbies; and time and again he and his friends had voted against the Government. If this claim were upheld, and he made no objection to it, the trade union group would, for its own protection, make the same claim to be recognised as a separate Party and to be entitled to representation on Committees.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. GEORGE WHITELEY,) Yorkshire, W.R., Pudseysaid he had little to add to what he had said on this question last night. He was, in some respects, the trustee of all the Parties and sections in the House, and he ventured to conceive that it was his business, as Chief Whip, to endeavour, as fairly as he could, to make all the Committees as represenative of every section of the House as was possible. Hon. Gentlemen opposite claimed a representative on every Committee. Such a claim was preposterous and an absolute impossibility. The Labour Party were entitled to have one-twenty-third of the representation on these Committees, and yet, out of seventeen Committees which had been appointed, they were represented on no fewer than thirteen. The hon. Member for South Glamorgan had described the position exactly. If the Labour Party set up this claim, then the trade union group were entitled to make the same claim, the Ulster Unionists might claim to be a separate Party, and even another group which had been set up this very session, a group dealing with the Highlands of Scotland, might put forward the same demand for representation. He had taken a great deal of trouble to 1283 try to conciliate hon. Members opposite. He had explained to them that in the circumstances their claim was unreasonable, and that the question was a question of principle upon which the Government were bound to take their stand.
§ MR. CROOKSsaid he would be the last man in the world to suggest that his friends opposite were not, in the best sense of the word, Labour representatives; but they were chosen as part and parcel of the Liberal Party and could not claim to represent the Independent Labour Party. There were many Members in the House who might put themselves up and declare themselves to be Labour representatives. The noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone claimed to be returned to the House by the working men of that borough and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham might make a similar claim. It was quite clear to those who sat beside him that the Committee would not be perfect if they shut out the hon. Member for Birkenhead, who would represent expert knowledge. The Independent Labour Party numbered thirty. They were sent to Parliament under certain conditions, and had special experience of the subject to be considered by the Committee. Yet they were told that their opinion was to be represented by men on the other side of the House! It was to be understood that they were not fighting the nominee of the Patronage Secretary, but they claimed to be a distinct Party, and demanded recognition as such. It was
§ said that their argument might apply to the Ulster Unionists, and that these should have a special representative; but the Ulster Unionists were part and parcel of the Conservative Party. [Cries of "Divide."] Hon. Gentlemen had hansoms to go home in, or motor-cars; the Labour Party had not, yet they did not wish to hurry up the division. They were fighting this point out with the Whip of the Liberal Party. That hon. Gentleman had put his Party in a false position by declaring that the Labour Party were represented by the Gentleman he had nominated.
MR. GEORGE WHITELYsaid he did not say that the Labour Party on that side of the House was represented on the Committee; but he said that labour was represented.
§ MR. CROOKSsaid that that was all very nice, but, as had been said already, every Member of the House might claim that he represented labour. The claim of the Independent Labour Party was that as this Committee was to deal with a matter closely connected with the working classes, they were entitled to special consideration. But really the whole system of nominating these Committees on the principle of Party strength was entirely wrong. He thought that the nation had a right to the services of the best men in the House irrespective of the Party to which they might belong.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—;Ayes, 320; Noes, 43. (Division List No. 70.)
1287| AYES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Ainsworth, John Stirling | Armstrong, W. C. Heaton |
| Acland-Hood, Rt Hn Sir Alex. F. | Alden, Percy | Ash ton, Thomas Gair |
| Adkins, W. Ryland | Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch) | Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry |
| Agnew, George William | Arkwright, John Stanhope | Astbury, John Meir |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H. | Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. | Lamont, Norman |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Dickinson, W. H.(St. Pancras,N | Layland-Barratt, Francis |
| Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.) | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Dobson, Thomas W. | Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Duckworth, James | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich |
| Barker, John | Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall) | Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Levy, Maurice |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Edwards, Frank (Radnor) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Beale, W. P. | Elibank, Master of | Lough, Thomas |
| Beauchamp, E. | Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Lupton, Arnold |
| Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham) | Erskine, David C. | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Evans, Samuel T. | Lynch, H. B. |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Eve, Harry Trelawney | Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk. B'gha |
| Benn, John Williams(Devonp'rt | Everett, R. Lacey | Mackarness, Frederic C. |
| Benn, W.(T'wr Hamlets, S. Geo. | Faber, George Denison (York) | Maclean, Donald |
| Bennett, E. N. | Fenwick. Charles | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Ferens, T. R. | M'Crae, George |
| Bertram, Julius | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | M'Kenna, Reginald |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) |
| Billson, Alfred | Forster, Henry William | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Fuller, John Michael F. | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire | Fullerton, Hugh | Maddison, Frederick |
| Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) | Furness, Sir Christopher | Manfield, Harry (Northants) |
| Brace, William | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Mansfield, H. Rendall(Lincoln) |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Gladstone, Rt. Hn HerbertJohn | Marks, G Croydon(Launceston) |
| Branch, James | Glendinning, R. G. | Marnham, F. J. |
| Brigg, John | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) |
| Brodie, N. C. | Greenwood, Hamar (York) | Massie, J. |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Menzies, Walter |
| Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Griffith, Ellis J. | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. |
| Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) | Gulland, John W. | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Molteno, Percy Alfred |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Haddock, George R. | Mond, A. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Montagu, E. S. |
| Burnyeat, J. D. W. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis | Montgomery, H. H. |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. SydneyCharles | Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. | Morgan, J.Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Cairns, Thomas | Hart-Davies, T. | Morley, Rt. Hon. John |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Harwood, George | Morrell, Philip |
| Causton, Rt. Hn Richard Knight | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Morse, L. L. |
| Cave, George | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Haworth, Arthur A. | Nicholls, George |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Hedges, A. Paget | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster |
| Chance, Frederick William | Helme, Norval Watson | Nield, Herbert |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Henry, Charles S. | Norman, Henry |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Nussey, Thomas Willans |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Hill, Sir Clement(Shrewsbury) | Nuttall, Harry |
| Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham) | Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.) | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) |
| Cleland, J. W. | Hobart, Sir Robert | Paul, Herbert |
| Clough, W. | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Coats, Sir T. Glen(Renfrew, W.) | Holden, E. Hopkinson | Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Holland, Sir William Henry | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Collins, Sir. Wm. J(S. Pancras, W. | Hooper, A. G. | Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Horniman, Emslie John | Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington |
| Corbett, C.H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Houston, Robert Paterson | Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) |
| Cory, Clifford John | Hyde, Clarendon | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Illingworth, Percy H. | Pollard, Dr. |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) |
| Cox, Harold | Jackson, R. S. | Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E) |
| Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth) | Jardine, Sir J. | Radford, G. H. |
| Crombie, John William | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Johnson, W. (Nuneton) | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Crossley, William J. | Kearley, Hudson E. | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Keswick, William | Rees, J. D. |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co. | Kincaid-Smith, Captain | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Renton, Major Leslie |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Lambert, George | Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th |
| Richardson, A. | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney) |
| Ridsdale, E. A. | Strachey, Sir Edward | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | Whitbread, Howard |
| Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee) | Stuart, James (Sunderland) | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd | Sutherland, J. E. | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Robinson, S. | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) | White, Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Roe, Sir Thomas | Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Rogers, P. E. Newman | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Whiteley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Rose, Charles Day | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.) | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Rowlands, J. | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Runciman, Walter | Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Russell, T. W. | Thomasson, Franklin | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Thompson, J. W.H(Somerset, E. | Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen) |
| Scarisbrick, T. T. L. | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) | Williamson, A.(Elgin and Nairn |
| Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Tomkinson, James | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne | Torrance, A. M. | Wilson, A. Stanley(York,E.R.) |
| Sears, J. E. | Toulmin, George | Wilson/Hon.'C.H. W.(Hull, W.) |
| Seaverns, J. H. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.) |
| Seely, Major J. B. | Ure, Alexander | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) | Valentia, Viscount | Wilson. J. W. (Worcestersh. N.) |
| Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B. | Verney, F. W. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Shipman, Dr. John G. | Vivian, Henry | Winfrey, R. |
| Silcock, Thomas Ball | Wadsworth, J. | Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk,'Mid |
| Simon, John Allsebrook | Wallace, Robert | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John | Walrond, Hon. Lionel | Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddersf'd |
| Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) | Younger, George |
| Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton) | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent | |
| Soares, Ernest J. | Ward, W Dudley(Southampton | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—;Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Spicer, Albert | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. | |
| Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.) | Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Hodge, John | Shackleton, David James |
| Barnard, E. B. | Hudson, Walter | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
| Barnes, G. N. | Jenkins, J. | Snowden, P. |
| Bottomley, Horatio | Jowett, F. W. | Summerbell, T. |
| Bull, Sir William James | Kelley, George D. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Thorne, William |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Macpherson, J. T. | Walsh, Stephen |
| Crooks, William | M'Calmont, Colonel James | Wardle, George J. |
| Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Watt, H. Anderson |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Masterman, C. F. G. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Fell, Arthur | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Gill, A, H, | O'Grady, J. | |
| Glover, Thomas | Parker, James (Halifax) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—;Mr. |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n | Arthur Henderson and Mr. Ramsay Macdonald. |
| Hay, Hon. Claude George | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | |
| Higham, John Sharp | Seddon, J. |
§ Mr. Mackarness, Mr. Morrell, Mr. Rowlands, Mr. Vivian, Mr. T. R. Bethell, Mr. Lane-Fox, Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Abel Smith, and Mr. Ginnell nominated other Members of the Select Committee.
§ Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
1288§ Ordered, That five be the quorum.—;(Mr. George Whiteley.)