THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS) said, that with reference to what the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Callan) had stated, he had always understood that, in striking Committees of this kind, it was desirable to put on them a certain number of Members who had an interest in the matter under discussion. On all Committees it was invariably the practice to nominate Gentlemen interested in the subject of inquiry, whilst, of course, on the other hand, Gentlemen were associated with them who had no such interest-Gentlemen who went into the subject for the first time, and were prepared to judge according to the evidence. The hon. Member (Mr. Callan) had spoken with some contempt of the hon. Member for Wenlock (Mr. Brown). [Mr. CALLAN: No, no. ·] Yes; the hon. Member spoke of him as a mere Cavalry officer; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) must point out that his hon. Friend (Mr. Brown) was thoroughly conversant with the question of salmon fisheries.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR said, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had entirely appreciated the grounds of the objection of the Irish Members. They objected to some of the Members, not because they had no interest in the questions to be referred to the Committee, but because they had too much interest in them. The strongest objection was that some of these Gentlemen had a direct personal interest in the matter of Irish Fisheries. The Solicitor General for Ireland had a direct personal pecuniary interest in the matter. The hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) also had an interest in the subject; but it was a very different thing to take an interest in a subject as representing a constituency, and taking an interest in it on distinctly personal grounds. Every hon. Member in the House represented some section of the country, but of the total number of 19 Members on the Committee there were four who had a direct pecuniary interest in Irish Fisheries. Therefore, he considered that the manner in which the Committee had been formed was little short of scandalous. An hon. Member beside him had reminded him that if the Standing Orders were adhered to-and he was sorry to say they were not except against the Irish Members-the votes of these four Gentlemen would be cancelled by any division which took THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-place. So far as to the Irish Members on QUER (Mr. CHILDERS) said, that the hon. Member spoken of had no special interest in this matter; but he had special information on the subject of fishing generally. So, again, had the hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks), who would be a perfectly impartial Member of the Committee. He had no interest in Irish Fisheries, but was a specialist on the subject of fisheries, and, therefore, a very valuable person to deal with matters of this kind on a Committee. If they said that whenever there was an inquiry as to one part of the United Kingdom other parts of the United Kingdom were not to take part in it, they would be laying down a perfectly novel rule, and a rule which might be very strongly objected to by the Irish Members at some future time. The Committee consisted of 19 Members, and he was reminded that of that number 14 were from Ireland,

MR. CALLAN said, he had simply stated that the hon. Member (Mr. Brown) was not an Irish Representative, and that he had no interest in the question to be inquired into by the Committee. He had said that all hon. Members from Ireland knew of this hon. Gentleman was that he was a Cavalry officer.

the Committee. Now as to the English Members. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer entirely misunderstood the objection which had been raised on this point. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) wished to ask a question. The right hon. Gentleman's defence for putting English Members on the Committee was that they were to take an impartial view of the subject under discussion; but what had been done in the case of the Railways and Canals Committee which had just been appointed? Why, there were 12 Members of that Committee, and of these just one was an Irish Member. No doubt, he was impartial on the subject; but unless they could get more than one impartial Irish Member to serve on that Inquiry, they ought not to put four or five impartial English or Scotch Members on the Fisheries Committee. The feeling on the Irish Benches was that the formation of the

Committee was calculated rather to im- | the river would be brought into quespede than to forward the object in view, tion. Now, the only Gentleman who and the Irish Members regarded the represented on the Committee the infact as an obstruction to just and reason- terests of the fishermen on the Lower able legislation. He did not propose, Shannon was the hon. Gentleman the at that hour of the morning (2 A.M.), to Member for Kerry (Mr. Blennerhassett). take any hostile step; but at the same The hon. Member might be very well time, if he could, he should be ready to able to take charge of those interests; prevent the appointment of the Commit- but it must be borne in mind that against tee altogether. the hon. Gentleman, supposing he did undertake to represent the fishing interests of the Lower Shannon, there were four or five Gentlemen who were interested in the fisheries of the Upper Shannon to be nominated. It was proposed to appoint as Members of the Committee several English Gentlemen. The custom of electing English Membors upon Committees of this kind need not in itself be necessarily objectionable; but it seemed to him that in this particular instance their appointment was objectionable, because English Gentlemen who went across to Ireland to fish, as some of the English Members it was proposed to appoint did, went across to fish with the rod. English Gentlemen who went to Ireland to fish went with their minds biased against the lower river fisheries, and therefore it was

MR. O'SHEA said, he was sorry that no Member who was interested in or who represented the counties of Limerick and Clare were to be nominated. Personally, he had no desire to serve on the Committee, though his mind was quite open on the subject of the law on the upper waters of the Shannon. He had constituents who were interested in both the upper and lower waters, and he was interested in another river in Ireland, facts which might make him an extremely objectionable Member of the Committee. Under all the circumstances of the case, however, he thought there ought to be upon the Committee an Irish Member who was thoroughly conversant in the salmon fisheries-such a Member, for instance, as his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan). If the hon. and gallant Gentle- that he objected to the appointment man were added to the Committee[Colonel NOLAN: No, no.]-it was very possible hon. Gentlemen opposite would be satisfied. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had no personal interest in the fisheries; but he was thoroughly oonversant with the fisheries of the Upper Shannon, and therefore he would prove a very advantageous addition to the Committee.

upon this Committee of any considerable number of English Members. Then, again, it was proposed to appoint upon the Committee Gentlemen who, it was well known to everybody in Ireland, had a distinct and direct pecuniary interest in the upper river fishe ries. He was reminded by an hon. Friend that a block was put against the Bill by a Scotch Member who went MR. KENNY said, that before this across to Ireland every year to fish on Select Committee was appointed, he and the Upper Shannon, and that in deferhis hon. Friends would like to have a ence to the wishes of that hon. Gentleclearer understanding as to what the man the Government put upon the special functions of the Committee would Committee four or five English Membe. Those functions were not at all bers who, probably, were equally indefined. If the Committee were to in- terested with him in the fisheries on the quire into the Bill which was before the Upper Shannon. He (Mr. Kenny) noHouse and had been before the House ticed the names of Gentlemen whose infor some time, the Committee were very terest in the question was so close that badly chosen. In the first place, the their minds were biased, and they were most important portion of the Irish Sal- prevented from arriving at correct and mon Fisheries were almost entirely neg-proper conclusions. Furthermore, the lected-namely, the fisheries on the Lower Shannon. It was only natural that the conflicting interests of the men engaged on the lower portion and of those engaged on the higher portion of

Mr. T. P. O'Connor

He

Committee was unusually large; the
right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secre-
tary said it grew imperceptibly.
hoped that if the right hon. Gentleman
persisted in the appointment of the

Committee, he would take care to have| Member of the said Committee.”—(Mr. the fisheries on the Lower Shannon pro- Campbell-Bannerman.) perly safeguarded; that he would consent to have their interests taken into

account and properly represented on the Committee, in view of the fact that the interests of the Higher Shannon anglers and sportsmen were guarded by four or five Gentleman who had direct concern in those interests.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR said, it seemed to him that the lesson of this discussion was very easily learnt. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) said that when he made the selection, he was assisted by his noble Friend the Treasury Whip (Lord Richard Grosvenor). He (Mr. A. O'Connor) had no doubt that the noble Lord gave all the assistance he could in the best faith in the world; but he could not have the least idea of the quicksands of opposing interests. If he might make a suggestion, it would be that if a similar occasion presented itself in the future, the Chief Secretary, instead of going to the noble Lord, who had plenty of other things in connection with England and the Treasury Bench to occupy him, should go to those Irish Members who represented the interests which were affected by the provisions of the Bill. It was always an invidious and painful thing to have to make remarks about individual Members of the House. Whatever opinions men might have of each other, no one liked to get up and object to an individual name. It was a thing which anybody naturally shrunk from, and therefore he could understand the unwillingness with which his hon. Friends had approached this subject that night. He understood his hon. Friends did not wish to carry their opposition to anything like an extreme. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would take to heart the lesson he had learnt that night, and that he would, on similar occasions in future, take counsel with the Members from Ireland.

MR. HEALY said, that simply as a protest he should take a division against this name, although he did not wish to connect any particular name with the

matter.

MR. SEXTON agreed with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Healy) as to the necessity of taking a division. He added that if the Government persisted in appointing on the Committee Gentlemen who had a direct pecuniary interest in the fisheries of the Shannon, their embarrassment, because if he and his action would probably result in great

hon. Friends found in the Committee

that the interests of the fishermen on the Lower Shannon were defeated by the votes of certain Members, they would certainly bring the matter before the House, with the view of having the votes disallowed.

Question put.

The House divided :-Ayes 40; Noes 16: Majority 24.-(Div. List, No. 46.)

Mr. MARJORIBANKS, Sir HERVEY BRUCE, Mr. LEAMY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. THOMAS THORNHILL, Mr. CALLAN, Lord MARCH, Mr. BLENNERHASSETT, Mr. HENRY, Colonel MILNE HOME, and Mr. DEASY nominated other Members of the said Committee.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered, That Five be the quorum.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS

(POOR LAW) (CORWEN, &c.) BILL.

On Motion of Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL, Bill to

confirm certain Orders of the Local Government Board under the provisions of "The Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876," Act, 1879," relating to the parishes of Corwen, as amended and extended by "The Poor Law Dolbenmaen, Ewenny, Gwyddelwern, Llanfi hangel-y-Pennant, Llangar, Llanharan, Llanilid, Mathern, Penmorfa, Saint Bride's Major, Saint Pierre and Runstone, and Yspytty Ystwith; and to the township of Lower Gwnnws,

SELL and Sir CHARLES DILKE.

Ordered, That the Select Committee on Salmon Fisheries (Ireland) do consist of Nineteen Mem-ordered to be brought in by Mr. GEORGE RUSbers:-Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND, Lord ARTHUR HILL, Mr. FINDLATER, Mr. HEALY, Viscount CRICHTON, Colonel COLTHURST, and Mr. SEXTON nominated Members of the said Committee.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. TOTTENHAM be one other

Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 86.]

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENSES OF CON-
FERENCES) BILL.

On Motion of Mr. LEAKE, Bill to provide for expenses incurred in relation to Conferences of

Order for Second Reading on Thurs- that, whatever the facts may be as to the day read, and discharged.