HC Deb 24 February 1860 vol 156 cc1719-22
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he wished to aak the First Lord of the Treasury, what course will be followed to obtain the assent of Parliament to certain Articles of the Commercial Treaty with France; whether by Resolutions and Address to the Crown by the House of Commons, to be communicated in a Conference to the Lords, as appears by the Journals of the House of Commons, on February 23rd, in 1787, or by what other mode of proceeding. In two Articles of the Treaty it was provided that it should not be considered as binding until the assent of Parliament had been obtained. It was remarkable that in all the debates that had taken place the precedent of 1787 had never been correctly stated. In that year the treaty was laid on the table of the House on January 26th; it was considered in Committee of the whole House on the 15th of February, and on the following day twenty-one Resolutions were reported. These were made the foundation of an Address, which was carried after long debate and a division. A Conference with the Lords was obtained, and on the 8th of March a joint Address to the Crown was agreed to. He wished to know whether the Government intended to follow the precedent of 1787, or, if not, in what way they proposed to obtain the sanction of Parliament to the Treaty?

MR. AYRTON

said, he wished to appeal to Mr. Speaker on a point of order relevant to the subject which the hon. Baronet had brought under their notice. There seemed to be some misunderstanding in the minds of hon. Members, and of the public, as to the course of proceeding in this House. There were many hon. Members who, approving very much the spirit in which the Treaty with France was negotiated, disapproved certain parts of the Treaty, and desired to submit particular questions for decision which affected the interests of their constituents. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) put a Notice on the paper of a Motion relative to the shipping interest; but it was not clear how that Motion could be discussed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice) had given notice of another Motion—"That it is inexpedient to reduce the duty on silk manufactures without making provision for the simultaneous admission of silks and ribands into France upon equal terms." He was under the impression that no such question as that could be raised in Committee, and, under that impression, he felt it his duty to vote against the Government on Monday night. But it now seemed that exactly what he thought could not be done could be done. The right hon. Member had consulted a Gentleman of high authority on the forms of the House, and had been informed that his Motion was consistent with its rules of procedure. He remembered having consulted one of their most eminent and distinguished authorities in points of order, the late Mr. FitzRoy, whose loss they must all deplore, and his reply was that it was essential that in Committee the debate should be strictly confined to the subject-matter of the Committee, and that every Resolution should be strictly within the limits of reference. In this state of uncertainty he was anxious to submit to the Speaker whether in Committee on the Customs Acts it was competent for an hon. Member to submit such a Resolution as that of the right hon. Member for Coventry.

MR. SPEAKER

I reminded the House the other evening that the Chairman of the Committees of Ways and Means is the judge of questions of order which may arise in Committee. I cannot say that a reference to myself of this kind is strictly in order. I could hardly, perhaps, with propriety answer the question unless it was the wish of the House that I should do so, and then only in general terms. A Committee can only deal with the matter that is specially referred to it. In a Committee of Customs' Duties any Resolution moved must refer to Customs' duties. If there were any treaty existing which related to such matters, it would, in my opinion, be com- petent to a Member to argue upon the subject of that treaty. But it would not be competent to the Committee to report to the House upon any provisions relating to the treaty, unless that treaty had been referred to the Committee. Consequently, it would not be competent for any Member to move a Resolution which could not with propriety be reported to the House. The Treaty may be discussed, but a Resolution on the subject would be out of place.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, that in the debate which took place a few evenings since some difference of opinion was expressed as to the extent to which legislative sanction was necessary to the validity of the Treaty with France; but there was no difference of opinion, and he imagined there could be no difference of opinion, as to the indispensable necessity of some Act or Acts of Parliament to give effect to it. They all knew that a Vote taken in Committee on the Customs was immediately operative; all persons engaged in commercial transactions acting on it just as if it had been sanctioned by all the branches of the Legislature. But a treaty with a foreign Power could not be legally sanctioned by a simple Vote in Committee of Customs. The House would probably be called on next Monday to agree to a proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the duties on foreign wine to (say) 3s. a gallon. As soon as that Resolution should be carried the effect out of doors would be that the dealers would proceed as if the Resolution had already become law—as if the Vote had been an Act of Parliament. But this Vote would go farther; because it was announced that it was not to be merely a reduction of the duty for 1860–61, but that it was to be followed by an Act of Parliament, reducing the duties for ten years to come. But then the House knew well that, although an Act of Parliament might be passed to that effect in the present Session, it might be repealed, or varied, or altered by an Act of Parliament in another. But if the House agreed to a Resolution to reduce the duties with a view to the Treaty, and passed an Act to give effect to the reduction fur ten years, the faith of Parliament would be pledged that the Act should not be altered during that period. He wished to avoid the danger of practically determining the question of the Treaty with France by a Resolution in Committee, especially as the Treaty would tie their hands for so long a period as ten years. He, therefore, wished to know what course the Government intended to take with regard to the Resolutions they would propose.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

The course which the Government propose to follow is that which I had the honour to explain upon a former occasion—namely, it is our intention to propose, in Committee on the Customs Acts, Resolutions bearing upon all the Articles of the Treaty which relate to changes in the Customs' laws; and as soon as the House shall have disposed of the Resolutions which, by referring to the Customs laws, have a direct bearing upon some of the engagements of the Treaty, it is our intention, without going further into the financial arrangements proposed, to submit to the consideration of the House an Address to the Crown, approving the Treaty in the aggregate. That will be communicated to the House of Lords, for the purpose of obtaining a joint Address from both Houses of the Legislature to the Crown on the subject of the Treaty.