The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-16 00:00:00

SELECT COMMITTEES.

Mr. EWAR r then rose to move, according to notice,
the following resolutions on this subject:-1. That the
number of Members composing Select Committees be
reduced (except when special cause be shown, to the
satisfaction of the House, for enlarging that
number) to seven. 2. That the Members appointed
to serve on Select Committees be selected by a
Committee of Selection. 3. That it be the duty of the
Committee of Selection to choose only such members to
serve on Select Committees as may declare their ability
to give their regular attendance at such Committees;
and that the Committee of Selection ascer-
tain this fact from such Members beforehand. 4.
That it be an object of the Committee of Selection, in
the formation of Select Committees, to combine a due
proportion of the younger Members with the more ex-
perienced Members of the House. 5. That three Mem
hers be held a sufficient quorum of Members for Select
Committees." He believed that by reducing the number
of Members on Select Committees to five, and by taking
away all local interests, Committees enjoyed more of the
confidence of the House and the country. About fifteen
years ago the Committees consisted of forty Members;
but very few of them usually attended. A change had
taken place, and that change was for the advantage of the
House. The resolution he proposed involved two main
principles—the reduction of the number and the enforce.
ment of attendance. In all legislative bodies except
Parliament the number of members on committees was
small. In France it was only nine, and it was found that
the practical working number was only seven. The re-
duced number was found to answer in Committees upon
Private Bills. By rendering the attendance of Members
constant, service would be done for the public; this,
however, could only be effected in the first instance by
adopting the smaller number. His (Mr. Ewart's) object
was to render the proceedings of the House more simple
and more effective. _

Mr. HOBHOUSE seconded the motion.
Mr. E. DENISON saw great inconvenience from the
selection being confided to a Committee of Selection as
contradistinguiehed from the present Committee of Se-
lection: it would also impede the action of the latter
Committee. He considered it would be impracticable to
consult each Member as to whether he wished to serve
on a Committee. At this time of the session it would
hardly be desirable to come to any conclusion upon the
motion, seeing that all the Committees were formed; and
he, therefore, suggested that the motion should be de-
ferred to next session, when it might be referred to a
Select Committee.

Sir H. H. INGLIS said all the arguments used by the
Hon. Gentleman in 1839 were now available against his
proposition in 1851. The resolution respecting private
Committees bad worked well; but there was no parity
between public and private Committees, and couse-
quenly he (Sir R. H. Inglis) could not agree to the
motion. Neither the House nor the Government could
consent to relinquish the power of nominating Select
Committees on important national subjects, besides
which the selection of any Committee of Selection would
not, give satisfaction to both parties. The practice at
present was to appoint no gentleman to a Select Com-
mittee who bad not signified his intentiiin to attend on
such Committee. He suggested that any report of a
Committee should be signed by the Members who con-
curred in it; and he concurred in the recommecdation
of his Hon. Friend to refer the whole subject next ses-
sion to a Select Committee.

Mr. HOBHOUSE supported the motion. He com-
plained of the xclusion ut certain Members from public
Committees, and maintained that the representatives of
the people is Parliament should be pares inter se—equal
among themselves. He could not agree that the House
would sot wish to part with the power of nominating
:Select Committees, seeing that in practice the
House had already parted with it to the Government
or to the majority. The simultaneous appoint-
ment of one Member also to serve on several Com-
mittees was a decided grievance. He, therefore, thought
the plan of his Hon. Friend a great improvement on the
existing system. Although seven or eight years a
Member of that House, he (lir. Hobhouse) had never
been called to serve on a single Select Committee.
These Committees virtually governed the country,
however; and therefore it was too much power to give
to the Government or to the leader of the Opposition the
nomination of the Members.

Mr. C. LEWIS could not support the motion. He
apprehended that if the plan in question was adopted,
the inquiries before Committees would Rot be satisfac-
tory, unless the practice of allowing counsel to be heard
was introduced. This he did not consider possible;
and therefore, as he believed the proposal would produce
far greater evils than existed, ho felt called upon to give
it his decided opposition.
Mr. HUME said the mode of election was not based
upon a right principle. Though many competent
Members were unjustly excluded from Committees, the
result of his experience showed the greatest difficulty in
obtaining the attendance of those who where nominated
to these Committees. Taking an average, it would be
found that in a Committee of fifteen no more than seven
attended. He would therefore reduce the number of
Select Committees to that figure, but he would also
snake attendance compulsory.—(Hear, hear.) He con-
sidered that the Committee of Selection had acted un-
justly in placing Members of that House upon private
Committees to prevent them serving on public Com-
mittees, and he hoped the Government would entertain
the subject in such a manner as to produce some satis-
factory result.
Mr. BROTHERTON was not sanguine as to the effect
of the change proposed by the Hon. Member, seeing
(that public and private Committees were conducted in
a very different manner. lie thought that when gentle-
men manifested the possession of information and ability
they were generally selected by the House to serve on
public Committees. At the same time, he did not wish
to stand for a moment in the way of impene.went.
Mr. EWART replied. He would be satisfied if his
resolution were referred to a Select Committee. It ap-
peared to be generally admitted in the course of the de-
bate that some change in the present system was neces-
sary. He did not absolutely limit himself to the number
of seven, but he maintained that he was quite consistent
with himself when he proposed the reduction of the pre-
sent number of members on Select Committees. He could
not, however, consent to put off his motion until next
session, as he considered the present was the proper

time to entertain the subject.
Lord J. RUSSELL could not consent to either of the
propositions made by the Hon. Member. He was not,
however, opposed to the appointment of a Select Corn
mimeos upon this subject, it the House was disposed to
entertain such a proposition, early next session. He did
n.st believe that any object could be attained by the ap-
pointment of such a Committee this session.

On the suggoation of Mr. HUME,
Mr. E Pi' ART consented to withdraw his proposition.
The motion was accordingly withdrawn.
MILLING INTEREST IN IRELAND.

Lord NAAS rose to move that the House should, on a
future day, resolve itself into a Committee to take into
consideration the present state of the milling interest in
Ire land. The Noble Lord began by referring to the
manner in which the interests of agriculture in Ireland,
as well as its linen and other manufactures, had for-
merly been cherished and fostered by the Legislature.:
The linen trade was now comparatively lost, and he was
prepared to prove that the important interest referred to
in his motion had also been involved in ruin—results
Tooduced in both cases by the legislation of that House.
—(Hear, hear.) It was formerly the practice of the
Irish millers to purchase large supplies of grain during
the period that elapsed between harvest and spring, and
to export flour into the English market with great ad-
vantage to themselves and to the country to which they
belonged; but that trade had now completely ceased, as
they were beaten out of the field by the enormous im-
portations of American and French flour that took place.
—(Hear, hear.) He found, from the returns of the
Board of Trade, that in 1845 the quantity of wheat ex-
ported to England was 372,000 quarters; in 1850 it
was only 76,000 quarters, being a decrease of 79 per
cent.—(Hear, hear.) Of wheaten meal and flour there
were exported to England in 1849, not, less than
1,422,900 cwt.; and in 1850 only 397,000 c.wts., being a
decrease of 72 per cent.—(Hear, hear.) 13ut the loss
did not end here, for Ireland had been obliged to im-
port these articles. Last year she import,d 2.200,000
quarters of wheat, of which about 1,000,0(J0 were from
foreign parts, and 570,000 cwt. of wheat tail and flour;