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

SUPPLY.

Mr. BERNAL brought up the report of the Com-
mittee of Supply, which was agreed to.
The House adjourned at Hilf•past Three to Half-past
Five o'clock.

The House resumed at Half-pait Five,o'elock.
PETI PIONS.

Mr. ANSTEY presented apetition from Yonghal,
praying for an alteration of the law in regard to the im-
portion of foreign flour.
Mr. DIVET C presented a petition from Exeter, pray-
ing that the Crystal Palace might be maintained as a
winter garden.
Mr. ROCHE presented a petition from a place in
Cork in favour of Church reform in Ireland.

Mr. DISRAELI presented a petition from Liverpool,
prayi❑g tor an alteration of the law respecting the im-
portation of foreigii fl ,ur.
HARWICH ELECTION. _ _

Mr. BANKES gave notice that ha would to-morrow
move that the new writ for Harwich should not be issued
until the minutes of evidence taken More the Com-
tnittee had been printed and laid on the,table of the
House.

SELECT COMMITTEES.
Mr. EWAR 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
satisfac ion of the House, for enlarging that
number) to seven. 2. That tho Members appointed
to serve on Select Committees be itelected 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 uoility
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 en obj-et of the Committee of Selection, in
the formation of Select Committees, to combine a due
proportion of the younger Members with the more ex-
p •rienced Members of the House. 5. That three Mem
peril 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
went of attendance. Iu 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-
duce 4 Dumber, 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) obj-ct
was to render tne proceedings of the House more simple
and more effee ive.
Mr. HOW-MUSE seconded the motion.
Mr. E. DENI3ON saw great inconvenience from the
selection being confided to a Committee of Selection as
contradistinguished from the present Committee of Se..
luction : it would also impede the action of the latter
Committee. He considered it would be impracticable to
consul,. each Member as to whether be wished to serve
on a t_lorntnittee. At this time of the session it would
hardly be desirable to come to any conclusion upon the
nautiln, seeing that all the Committees were formed; and
ne, therefore, suggested that the motion should be de-
ferred to next session, when it might be referred to a
Select Committee.

Sir R. H. INGLIS said all the arguments used by the
Lion.,Gei:oleman in 1839 were now available against his
proposition in 1851. The resolution respecting private
Commi,tees had worked well; but there was no parity
between public and private Committees. and conse-
quer' ly he (Sir R. EL Inglis) could not agree to the
motion. Nei,h r 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
no; give satiAtactiou to both parties. The practice at
present was to appoint no gentleman to a Select Com-
mittee who bad not signified his intenti,n 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 recommendation
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 t xclusion of 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 riot wish to pert with the power of nominating
Sleet Cemmiltees, seeing that in practice the
House had already parted with it to the Government
or to the m jirity. The simultaneous appoint-
ment of one Member also to serve on several Corn-
ell,. tees was a decided grievance. He, therefore, thought
the plan of his Hon. Friend a great improvement on the
xistiog ssstetn. Although seven or eight years a
Nlernber of teat H use, he (Mr. Habhou-e) had never
weir called to serve on a single Select Committee.
governed
)much
pthoewercitmongtirvy:
yalesa der of the Opposition the
sToheits e Government
however;e, ,
eamrnanintteht enter:,
oirt:rtierotiuttha
wel
nomination of the Members.
Mi. C. LEWIS could not support the motion. He
appieh,nded that if the plan in question was adopted,
he inqoiries before C untnittees would not be satisfac-
etry, unless the practice of allowing counsel to be heard
was introduced. This he did not considttr possible;
sod +here ore, as he believed the proposal would produce
far greater evils than exist, d, he felt called upon to give
it his,dceided 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
tu 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 fieure, but he would also
make. attendance compulsory.—(Hear, hear.) He con-
sidered that the Committee of Selection hal 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 %soul.' entertain
the eubject in such a manner as to produce some antis-
fact try result.
Mr. BRO MERTON was not sanguine as to the eff-ct
of the change proposed by the Hun. Member, seeing
that public and private Committees were conducted in
a very different manner. He 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 improvement.
Mr. E WAR replied. He would be satisfied if his
resolution were referred to a Select Committee. It op-
peered 'to be generally admitted in the course of the do-
nate that some change in the present system was neces-
sary. He did nut absolutely limit himself to the number
of seven, but he maintained that be 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 Com
mittee upon this subject, it the House was disposed to
entertain such a proposition, early next session. He did
not believe that any object could be attained by the ap-
pointment of such a Committee this session.
On the suggestion of Mr. HUM.E,
Mr. E W 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
ftuure day, resolve itself into a Committee to take into
consideration the present sta e of the milling interest in
Leland. The Noble Lord began by referring to the
manner in which the interests of agriculture iu Ireland,
as well as its linen and other manufactures, had for-
, miserly been cherished and fosterei by the Legislature.
Toe linen trade was now comparatively lost, and he was
prepared to prove that the important inters st referred to
in his motion had also been involved in ruin—results
product d in both cases by the legislation of that House.
—(Hear, hear.) It was formerly the practice of the
Irish m.llers 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-
eantege to themzelves and to the country to which they
belonged; but that trade had now completely ceased, as
they wore 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 this quantity, of wheat ex-
ported to England Wad 372 009 quarters.; 1850 it
was only 76,000 quarters, being a decretists of 79 per
cent.—(Hear, hear.) Of wheaten meal and fl ,ur there
were export' d •to England in 1849, not less than
1,422,9u0 cwt.; and in 1850 only 397,00005:it5., being a
decrease of 72 per cent.—(Hear, hear.) But the loss
did nut end here, fur Ireland had been obliged to im-
port these articles. Last year she imported 2,200,000
quarters of wheat, of which about. 1,000,000 were from
feretgn parts, and 570,000 owl. of wheat NO and flour;