§ MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he wished to put a question to Mr. Speaker upon a matter affecting the proceedings of the House. There was a difference of opinion as to the privilege which Members had in raising discussions upon the different stages of the Appropriation Bill. It was contended by some that Members had the same right at the different stages of the Appropriation Bill that they had upon Supply, seeing that the Appropriation Bill was in fact to give legal effect to the Votes in Supply, and the application of the public money. There were others who seemed to be under the impression that upon the different stages of the Appropriation Bill they were limited to observations simply 642 on the clauses of the Bill. He was anxious, for the guidance of the House, that the right hon. Gentleman should tell them what the rule was. He perceived by looking back that there had been various proceedings taken on the stages of that Bill. Last year, on the third reading of the Bill, the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell) introduced the whole question of our foreign policy, and the Italian question, and the Prime Minister also made a long speech on foreign policy on the same occasion. On a previous occasion the late Mr. Lucas brought on the unequal operation of the income tax in one of the stages of the Appropriation Bill. It was most important that they should adhere to their rules, but at the same time that they should depart from no constitutional privilege which they had enjoyed.
§ MR. SPEAKERIn answer to the question of the right hon. Gentleman, I have to state that Members have no more privileges with respect to the Appropriation Bill than with reference to any other Bill before the House, and that any observation which they may wish to make, and any Amendments which they may wish to propose, on this Bill, ought to be strictly relevant to the question before the House. As the right hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to give me notice of the question which he has put to me, I have been able to refer to the Report of a Committee of which I had the honour to be a member in 1837, and on which also the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) sat. That Committee was appointed to consider the state of public business at that time, and I have no doubt it will be in the recollection of many hon. Members, that a very inconvenient and irregular practice had been introduced of moving Amendments upon the Orders of the Day. Members asserted that they had the right upon the Question that an Order of the Day be read, of moving any Amendment they thought proper, and if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) will turn to the Report of those proceedings, he will find that most of the Amendments to which he has referred were Amendments on the Orders of the Day. The Committee consulted the then Speaker, Mr. Abercromby, and all those persons connected with the House of Commons who had had the greatest experience 643 in Parliamentary matters, and I will read to the House a paragraph from their Report bearing on this question; but I must first explain that the Committee recommended that this practice of moving Amendments on the Orders of the Day should be discontinued, and that there should only be two Amendments allowed on this question—namely, that the other Orders of the Day should be read, or that some particular Order should be read. They proceed to state:—
Your Committee have been given to understand that, according to the practice now followed, it would be considered disorderly to interpose upon this question (unless, of course, with the excepts stated of a Committee of Supply or Ways and Means), by interposing any question not strictly relating to the Bill, which the House by its Order has resolved upon considering; and they have therefore deemed it unnecessary to provide against the occurrence of an attempt to disturb this course of proceeding, although they wish strongly to impress upon the House the propriety of maintaining what they deem to be the established practice at present, should any attempt to interfere with it be made.This I take to be a clear statement of the rules of the House, and that Members have really no greater privileges with reference to the Appropriation Bill than on any other Bill. With reference to the speech made by the noble Lord the Member for London last year, to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded, the noble Lord, I remember, put himself in order by referring at the commencement of his speech to certain votes in the Appropriation Bill, upon which the noble Lord founded the observations he then made.
§ MR. ROEBUCKWas that recommendation ever affirmed by a Resolution of this House?
§ MR. SPEAKERThat Report was framed after great consideration. It stated what was the rule of the House at that time. That rule has been maintained ever since, and it is a rule which I shall consider it to be my duty to maintain until the House shall otherwise order.