HC Deb 08 June 1883 vol 280 cc100-9
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, ho rose to call the attention of the House to a Notice which stood upon the Paper in his name—namely, of his intention to move— That if, on Friday evening, an Amendment be carried to the Question, 'That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,' it shall be obligatory on Her Majesty's Government, before proceeding to any other Business, to move, 'That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee of Supply,' and Mr. Speaker shall again propose the Question, 'That I do now leave the Chair.' That Notice had now been on the Paper for a considerable time, and he should like to ask the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney), if there was any possibility of the Leader of the House being shortly in his place? Because, if the right hon. Gentleman was not able to be present, it was not desirable for him (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) to occupy the attention of the House at any considerable length, inasmuch as it was in regard to the right hon. Gentleman and his policy, that he desired to ask the attention of the House. He certainly felt placed in a position of some embarrassment on the present occasion, and ho could not but express surprise at it, because ho had, not long ago, come into conflict with the right hon. Gentleman; and for the purpose of arriving at a decision as speedily as possible, and preventing any lengthened debate, he had taken the trouble to put the right hon. Gentleman in possession of what he considered to be the leading features of his case, in order that the right hon. Gentleman might be able to express agreement with the Notice which stood in his name, or to give some assurance to the House that the rights of independent Members would not be obstructed in future. He had no wish to talk against time, until the Prime Minister could be fetched from any place where he might now be enjoying himself; but, at the same time, it was necessary that he should direct the attention of the House to the subject. [At this point Mr. GLADSTONE entered the House.] As the right hon. Gentleman was now in his place, he would be able to proceed with the case, and, in as few words as possible, to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the matter. He did not wish to treat it in any controversial spirit; but he wished to be as Parliamentary and polite as he possibly could in the language he used, and he hoped that the heart of the right hon. Gentleman would be touched, and that, in the future, he would abstain from any interference with the rights and privileges of independent Members of the House. In the first place, he desired to call the attention of the House to the year 1861, when private Members had Thursday for their Notices, and, also, the right, on Fridays, of speaking upon the question of the adjournment of the House from Friday to Monday. That question afforded them an opportunity of addressing the House upon any subject they thought fit to bring under notice. It was thought by Lord Palmerston that these extensive privileges of independent Members considerably limited the time at the disposal of the Government, and, therefore, in the early part of 1861, a Committee was appointed to consider the subject, of which the late Sir James Graham was Chairman. That Committee recommended that Thursday should be given to the Government, and that on Friday nights, instead of the Motion for Adjournment, Supply should be put down as the first Order of the Day, so that private Members should have their full right of bringing forward Motions. He would cite a few passages to show what was the opinion of the Leader of the House and other experienced authorities at that time. Lord Palmerston, in giving his reasons for the arrangement, said— The Select Committee thought there would be an advantage by going into Committee of Supply on Friday night, and that, too, without any encroachment on the time of hon. Members for bringing on their Motions in accordance with their Notices. It would be a security to private Members when Committee of Supply is fixed that those who are interested in carrying on the Business of the Government will be in their places, and there would be less chance of private Members being defeated by the scantiness and thinness of the House. We do not propose to take from private Members anything which they now have, but simply to give the Government a reversion to any unexpended portion of time which may remain after the Notices of Motion have been disposed of. The suggestion was thrown out that there should be a limitation to those discussions upon going into Committee of Supply; but the Committee did not think it was expedient, and they proposed to leave unrestricted in the amplest extent the opportunities which Members now enjoy. Sir James Graham, the Chairman of the Select Committee, said— If this recommendation of the Committee be adopted, and it be the invariable rule that on Friday the Speaker leave the Chair to go into Committee of Supply, whereas now no Amendment on Friday can be put on the substituted Motion, an Amendment may be moved and the sense of the House taken upon it in addition to retaining every facility for calling attention to any special subject. Mr. Sotheron Estcourt, who was a Member of the House for a considerable number of years, and was an influential Gentleman sitting on the Opposition side, said— The impression was that it was intended to deprive independent Members of certain facilities which they at present possessed; but he held that independent Members would be in a better condition than at present. The substitution of debates on going into Supply on Fridays would not in any way encroach upon the present privileges of private Members. These were the expectations and inducements held out to Members of the House for parting with Thursday, and giving up the privileges they enjoyed on Friday. The question was discussed at some length, and afterwards, on the proposal of Lord Palmerston, the Motion was carried. Personally, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) objected to the Motion, and he voted against it; but it was most distinctly understood by the House—and he remembered Sir Henry Layard, who was at that time a Member of the House, giving it as his reason for supporting it—that independent Members would have their full rights on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, el would be really better off than they were at that time. And so matters went on for 10 years; and he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) believed, during those 10 years, there were very few occasions when the Committee of Supply was not revived by the Government. However, in 1871, the Government de- clined, on one occasion, to revive Supply, and the question came on for discussion on the 6th of May in that year. The matter was mentioned a month or six weeks ago, and a Report was read from Hansard of the debate which took place at that time; but it was not exactly a full representation of what had taken place. He (Mr. Cavendish Ben-thick) had preserved his own private notes of the debate, and they were confirmed from other sources of information, and it would be soon that Mr. Speaker Denison had decided that there was an obligation on the part of the Government on Fridays to re-instate the Order for going into Supply. He would ask the attention of the House while he read a short report of the debate, which was a correct version of what oocurred. The question arose upon a matter raised by his hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence). On that occasion, on the Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," a Resolution had been proposed by the present Common Serjeant of the City of London (Sir Thomas Charley), and the Motion being assented to by the Government, the Motion of the hon. Member for the City of London stood next on the Paper. It was a Motion referring to the Duchy of Lancaster; but the Government declined to revive Supply, and the hon. Member for the City of London failing to exhibit the usual energy which characterized him, remained silent in his place. Therefore, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) felt himself obliged to rise, and he said— Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: A compact was entered into in 1860 between the Government and the independent Members that on Fridays, as soon as an Amendment to a Motion for Supply was carried, the Government were bound to revive the Motion. If that were done the hon. Member for the City of London would be at liberty to proceed with his Motion, and subsequently any hon. Member could address the House upon the ordinary Question that the Speaker leave the Chair. He understood that on a previous Friday the Premier raised a doubt as to whether the Government were under an obligation to revive the Motion; but when, in 1860, the independent Members of the House gave up Thursday to the Government, it was understood that they should have the right of full discussion on Friday evening on the Question that the Speaker leave the Chair. The Government ought not to attempt to limit the rights of independent Members; and he, therefore, thought it was the duty of the Government to make the Motion, in which case the hon. Member for the City of London would be a liberty to proceed. Mr. SPEAKER: The original Question was that I now leave the Chair, since which a Select Committee has been appointed; and the question of the hon. Member for Whitehaven is whether, under these circumstances, the Committee of Supply could be re-instated? That is the question to which the attention of the Government is drawn. Mr. GLADSTONE: Upon that point of Order I shall be glad to take the instruction of those who are competent to give it. I am not aware of that about which the hon. Member for White-haven seems so very confident—namely, that in the event of the failure of the original Motion, That Mr. Speaker leave the Chair,' it is obligatory on the part of the Government to renew it. [Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: On Fridays.] I am not sure either that if the Government do now renew it, it is within the power of any hon. Member to do so. As to that, I apprehend the hon. Member for Whitehaven is entirely in the wrong. I think it is not competent for any hon. Member to renew that question. With respect to the obligation on the part of the Government to renew it, that is going beyond my knowledge; but if it be a matter of good faith on the part of the Government to renew the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, of course, I am quite willing to act upon that. Mr. SPEAKER: The original Question was that I now leave the Chair, since which it has been moved that a Select Committee should be appointed. That Amendment being adopted, it supersedes the Question that I leave the Chair. Then, certainly, it is a course which has been followed on previous occasions, that under such circumstances the Government would revive the Motion for the Committee of Supply. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford was then put, and agreed to. There was then a pause for a short time, followed by cries of Move!' Mr. GLADSTONE rose and said: My hon. Friend would relieve me very much if ho would withdraw that portion of his Motion which relates to the Duchy of Lancaster. Mr. Alderman LAWRENCE: I will withdraw that part of the Motion. Mr. GLADSTONE: Then, if my hon. Friend withdraws that part of his Motion, I will move that the House immediately resolve itself into Committee of Supply.

MR. GLADSTONE

asked where the report the right hon. and learned Member was quoting was to be found

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he was giving his own recollection of what occurred, and he was quite clear upon the subject. To sum up what he had already said, the Government declined to set up Supply upon an Amendment being carried. He had made an appeal to them to renew the Motion for Supply. The right hon. Gentleman, first of all, said there was no obligation on the part of the Government to revive Supply; and then, that they could not do so; whereupon Mr. Speaker Denison, on being appealed to, said that— Certainly it was a course which had boon followed on previous occasions—that, under such circumstances, the Government should revive the Motion for the Committee of Supply. Well, what were the circumstances and previous occasions? Why, that the day was Friday, and therefore the Motion for going into Committee of Supply was revived, according to the rule which was followed for a long series of years, after the speech of Lord Palmerston and the recommendation of the Committee. If it had not been so, how could Lord Palmerston have said that it was his intention on Fridays to leave unrestricted to the amplest extent the opportunities which private Members then enjoyed? That remark afforded a clear indication of what was in the mind of Lord Palmerston. Lord Palmerston either meant what he said, or he did not mean what he said. If he did mean what he said, an expectation was held out to independent Members of the House that they should have the power of moving Amendments, and also of carrying on a desultory discussion; and a consideration was offered to thorn for surrendering their privileges. Nothing had happened since to abrogate those privileges, or to get rid of the expectations held out on that occasion by Lord Palmerston. These were the circumstances referred to by Mr. Speaker Denison and his ruling. The hardships which the new practice might inflict upon private Members were obvious. It was clear that, in times of pressure, the Government might find it an instrument in their hands which they would be able to use to the great detriment of free discussion in the House, and in violation of the rights of independent Members. He believed it was not competent for him to move his Notice as an Amendment, and he was glad of it, because he should have been sorry in a thin House, and at that hour of the night, that the House should, by an adverse vote, arrive at a Resolution which would appear to be detrimental to the Privileges of the House. All he did now was to express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would answer the observations he had made in a conciliatory spirit, in order to show that he was not disposed to press any further limitations which might be injurious to the interests of private Members.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, there were several points raised in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). In regard to some of them, he was inclined to agree; while, in respect of others, he differed from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it was not desirable for the House to come to a vote on a Motion of this kind; and, therefore, it was satisfactory to know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not in a position to move it. As to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, lie thought he was mistaken in attempting to derive from the declaration of Lord Palmerston any expression of opinion whatever bearing upon the present point. The point the House were discussing at that time was whether there should be a limitation of the subjects which might be brought forward on the Order of the Day for going into Supply; and, upon that point, Lord Palmerston stated that the Committee were opposed to any limitation. The real question in the particular case which had been referred to was whether, when the Order of the Day for going into Committee of Supply had been decided by the carrying of an adverse Amendment, the Government were bound to set up Supply again, and that question formed no part of the previous discussion at all. He did not quite understand what amount of authority the notes of the right hon. and learned Gentleman had; but lie certainly differed from the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the construction he had placed upon them. He understood they were notes taken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, they were notes corrected by himself.

MR. GLADSTONE

And not to be found in Hansard?

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

No. He had expressly stated they were not to be found in Hansard.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that, under the circumstances, he did not know what degree of authority the notes were entitled to claim; but he entirely differed from the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the construction he put upon them. The case arose on a particular occasion, when the Order for going into Committee of Supply having been put aside by the carrying of an adverse Amendment, a question was raised, not whether Supply should be, but whether it could be, set up again? An appeal was made to the Speaker on the subject, and Lord Ossington, who was then Speaker (as Mr. Denison), pointed out what had been the mode of procedure on previous occasions; but he did not say that it had been the invariable rule on all previous occasions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said the ruling of the present Speaker was in conflict with that of Lord Ossington, the present Speaker having stated that there was no obligation on the part of the present Government to renew the Motion for going into Committee of Supply. The right hon. and learned Gentleman contended that that ruling was contrary to the usage of the House, and contrary to the dictum of Lord Ossington; but, in his (Mr. Gladstone's) opinion, there was no discrepancy whatever between the ruling of the two Speakers, and the dictum of Lord Ossington did not, in the slightest degree, conflict with the ruling given a short time ago by the present Speaker. Nor was there, in truth, any practical difference between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and himself; because they both agreed in substance that Friday evening was to be at the disposal of private and independent Members. He should, however, have objected to the Motion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the ground, among other things, that much depended upon the hour of the evening and the circumstances of the case. It might be a very late hour in the evening, or 1 o'clock in the morning, when an adverse Motion was carried; and it was not obligatory, nor would it be convenient, as a general rule, that a Motion for going into Committee of Supply should in such a case be renewed. That was a point upon which he differed from the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but, as regarded the proposition that in ordinary circumstances, where it was inconvenient to the House, or where urgent Public Business did not require a different course to be pursued, it would undoubtedly be a very rare case where the Order for going into Committee of Supply was not set up again. There was one point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not notice, and that was the expectation of Lord Palmerston, when the arrangement was made, that there would be an appreciable residue of the time on Fridays available for the Business of the Government. He (Mr. Gladstone) recollected quite well, in 1866, calculating the time at the disposal of the Government for Government Business, and he confined himself to two days in the week, Monday and Thursday; but Lord Derby, who then held a prominent position on the other side of the House, pointed out and argued justly that he had forgotten to take notice of the fact that the Government were the residuary legatees of Friday night. That was the view which the Government had always taken of the matter, and the only case in which ho could recollect a dispute having arisen was when they had reached the hour of 11 o'clock, and the greater part of the evening had been passed in discussing Motions upon going into Committee of Supply.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, he did not suppose it was necessary, under the circumstances, that he should enter very largely into the question which had been raised by his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). He must say, however, that he agreed to some extent in his contention. He thought that the intention of the Rule which was made in regard to taking Supply on Fridays was that an opportunity should be given to Members of the House to bring forward, in the free manner they were in the habit of doing, on the Motion for Adjournment from Friday until Monday, such subjects which they thought ought to be discussed. He thought it was entirely in accordance with the principle of that Rule that the Government, at all events in ordinary circumstances, should set up Supply again on such occasions as those which his right hon. and learned Friend contemplated. He did not understand, from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, that he really differed from that view of the case. If the House were now in a position to come to a vote on the subject, he should, of course, have considered it necessary to say a few words more in order to support his vote; but they were not in that position. They were simply engaged in an academic discussion; he thought the effect of it would be to express, on the part of the House, an opinion that the Rule which should be followed should be of the character described by his right hon. and learned Friend, although it could not be made absolute.