The Sun.
London, England, 1853-02-25 00:00:00

'.fr. James Sa,dleir, Viscount Monck, Mr. Walpole, Colonel
'lreville, Mr. Napier, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Davison, Mr. Bright,
Mr. Drummond, Mr. Mackenzie, Mr. Dunlop, Vernon,
Mr. Bouverie, Mr. Pollard Urquhart, Mr. Fortescue,
Lord Claud Hamilton, Mr. Whiteside, and Mr. Grogan.
The first named was agreed to. On the second being
proposed,
t,aptain JONES inquired whether the right hon. gentle-
•nan the Secretary for the Home Department would be able
to serve ?
Viscount PALMERSTON was understood to intimate
his willingness to do so.
The name was then agreed to, as were the names of Mr.
Shee and Lord Naas; but the name of Mr. Lucas being

proposed, •
Sir A. BROOKE complained that,'whilst the committee
consisted of fourteen Irish Liberal members, only six Con-
servative members had been named, and there was not a
single representative for
Sir JOHN YOUNG justified the selection, which he con-
3iclered perfectly fair. The appointment of the committee
was not an act of the present Government, but of the House
of Commons ; and he was performing a mere ministerial
intr. in selecting the names. He had consulted the hon-
ourable member for the University of Dublin as to certain
:ambers, andthe honourable member for Kilkenny as to

others. He thought at first the committee ougnt to con-
sist of twenty-one members, seven to be named by the
honourable member for the University, seven by the hon-
ourable member for Kilkenny, and seven by the Govern-
neut. But this difficulty occurred : the honourable mem-
ber for Manchester and the honourable member for Surrey
had given great attention to the subject, and had served on
several Irish committees, and he thought it desirable to
enlarge the committee, and place thereon the names of
some other gentlemen. The honourable gentleman oppo-
site complained that Ulster was unrepresented. Now,
Ulster was represented in his (Sir John Young's) person,
and in the persons of Lord Naas and Sir R. Ferguson.
The present Government, he contended, was not respon-
sible for the appointment of the committee, and their only
object was that the inquiry should be carried out as fairly
4s possible.
After a few words from Sir A. BROOKE and Mr.
KER,
Mr. MACARTNEY recommended that the committee
should consist of twenty-one members instead of thirtY,
seven to be nominated by the honourable and learned ser-
geant, seven, on behalf of the late Government, and seven
on behalf of the present.
Mr. BROTHERTON thought it too late to discuss this
matter further, and begged to move the adjournment of
the debate.

Mr. SCULLY was satisfied with the proposed constitu-
tion of the committee. No committee which did not fully
represent the tenant class as well as the landlord class
would give any satisfaction in Ireland. He hoped that
after the large professions which had been made from the
other side, no further opposition would be offered to the
appointment of the committee.
Sir W. VERNER objected to the appointment on the
committee of certain members who had committed them-
selves by, the advocacy of extreme views at public meetings
or otherwise, and had declared their intention to oppose
any Government which did not concede what they re-
quired.
Mr. NAPIER thought it desirable the question should
be brought to a close as soon as possible, as whilst it re-
mained open it disturbed Ireland, and depreciated Irish
property. No committee could be free from objection
from some quarter; on the whole he should support this,
and would give its deliberation his best assistance. (Hear.)
Sir JOHN WALSH said the larger the committee the
taxer the attendance. He thought this too large, and
thought the names required reconsideration.
Lord J. RUSSELL drew attention to the fact that the
hon. member opposite (Mr. Napier), who was more inte-
rested in this matter than almost any member of the
house, had declared himself satisfied with the committee.
But, if the house still objected to the committee, he thought
the question had better be postponed. (Hear, hear,
no, no.)
After a 'few words from Mr. T. KENNEDY and Mr.
KIRK,
Mr. BROTHERTON moved the adjournment of the
debate.
Mr. DUFFY said it had been objected (by Sir W. Ver-
ner) that, whereas the Ulster tenant right question was to
be inquired into, no representative of Ulster was on the
committee. If it was true, as the gallant colonel also
said, that nobody, even in 'Ulster, understood that ques-
tion, he could not see that it was a serious loss. (Laughter.)
However, he happened, as an Ulster man, to know what
was the fact, and could state that seven members of that
committee were born and reared in the province of Ulster.
(Hear, hear.) The reasonable objection to the committee
was, that the Secretary for Ireland had placed on it four
additional representatives of the landlord class. If they
intended to have a bill that would settle that question,
they must have a committee whom the tenantry would
trust.
The debate was then adjourned to Monday next.