§ MR. E. JENKINS,speaking to a point of Order, said, he had to put a Question to the Speaker with regard to the ruling from the Chair on the previous night on the subject of the limitation of the debates on the third reading of the Appropriation Bill. He should not have taken this course if there had not been some precedent which appeared to justify him in what he had proposed to do on the previous evening. The question was one of considerable interest and importance, because if private Members were to be limited in their discussions on the Appropriation Bill there was no doubt that a very considerable privilege would be taken away from them. The ruling, he might observe, was offered spontaneously from the Chair, and without any one rising to challenge him to Order. He had commenced his 1159 remarks on the third reading of the Bill by calling in question the domestic policy of Her Majesty's Government, which he considered was tending to weaken the position of that House and injure our ancient Constitution, where upon the Speaker called him to Order, reminding him that any observations that were made must be relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill; and, in answer to the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke), said that discussions on the Bill should be applicable to some of the clauses, and that, though these clauses had a wide application, he could not see how those of the hon. Member were relevant. Thereupon he (Mr. Jenkins) suggested whether the remarks he proposed to make were not as relevant as those of the hon. Member for Poole, seeing that Her Majesty's Ministers, whose conduct he was challenging, received salaries for which provision was made in the Bill. The Speaker then said that if he (Mr. Jenkins) proposed to call in question the salary of the First Minister, or any other Minister of the Crown, he would be in Order. The consequence was. that he was obliged to forego the privilege of discussing the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, excepting with regard to their foreign policy. He found that Sir Erskine May, in his book on Parliamentary Practice, stated that—
It had been ruled that debates and amendments upon the different stages of the Appropriation Bill were to be governed by the same rules as those applicable to other Bills, and must, therefore, be relevant to the Bill, or some part of it, instead of being allowed the same latitude as that practised on going into the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means; but, as the grants comprised in the Bill are of great variety, a wide range of discussion was sometimes founded upon it without exceeding the limits of relevancy."— [p. 619.]As to the custom and practice of the House, it was the habit of the late Mr. Hume upon the second or third reading of the Appropriation Bill to enter into a very long and varied criticism of the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers. If he had really transgressed the Rules of the House it was not without having some ancient authority to fall back upon, and he ventured to call attention to this matter now, because he felt that if they were limited in their discussions upon this particular Bill, they should lose a great privilege, of which the hon. Mem- 1160 ber for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) availed himself last year to call attention to the fact that the Fenian prisoners were still in confinement, and as to which they should now have some accurate and denned statement of opinion from the Chair.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) put a Question to me yesterday on this point, and I do not know that I have anything to add to the answer I then gave him. The Appropriation Bill is no exception to the general rule that debates should be relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill before the House. It is obvious, however, that as the Appropriation Bill appropriates the several Supplies voted for the service of the year, that rule has a wide application in the case of the debate on that particular Bill. Since the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea put a Question to me on this point yesterday, I have referred to an authority which is justly of great weight in this House— namely, the work of Sir Thomas Erskine May on Parliamentary Practice. It is not necessary that I should quote it to the House, because the hon. Member has himself quoted the very passage which bears out substantially the rule which I stated last night.
SIR, CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not rise to question the ruling of the Speaker— it would be presumptuous of so young a Member as himself to do so — but he wished to ask whether the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was in Order last year in the speech he made on the Motion for going into Committee on the Appropriation Bill, and whether the Leader of the Opposition was also in Order in making the speech which he did?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Baronet has put a Question to me which I think I am scarcely called upon to answer. It is not for me to rule now whether Members were in Order in former Sessions of Parliament.
§ MR. BUTTwould like to put this Question to the House— Would it not be competent for him to move on the Appropriation Bill, that the Supplies should be limited to three months, on the ground that he distrusted Ministers, and then to discuss the whole policy of the Government during the Session? If he was not mistaken in his recollection, some- 1161 thing of that kind was done in the days of Pitt, upon the ground that Ministers were violating the privileges of the House of Commons and acting unconstitutionally. Modern usage, he confessed, tended to limit the privileges of the House, and to depart further and further from ancient custom.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, they could not help feeling that this question had been brought before them rather by surprise, and no advantage could result from their entering into any long discussion upon it. He thought the House would see that if the precedent which the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) referred to was one that took place, there would be an obvious difference between a Motion for limiting the amount of Supplies deliberately given and founded upon reasons which were stated, and a general discussion which might be initiated at any stage of the Bill, and which clearly might in Committee take any latitude whatever, because there was no subject, either foreign or domestic, upon which they might not raise a discussion by connecting it with the salary of some Minister. The rule laid down was a convenient one— namely, that no discussion should take place which was not relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill, and upon that point they had no guide except to submit to the judgment of the Speaker, who acted from his knowledge and study of the precedents and Rules of the House, and who always, he was sure, endeavoured to act in the spirit of those Rules. Although it might not be unnatural that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins) should put a Question as to the precise limits of the Rule, yet the House would not do wisely if they were to attempt now, by putting too many Questions to the Speaker, to limit his discretion, upon the due exercise of which the conduct of the Business of that House must depend.
MR. BECKETT - DENISONasked whether, assuming, as he did, that the ruling of Mr. Speaker was correct, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ashley) was in Order in bringing forward his Amendment?
§ MR. SPEAKERIt is not for me to answer any hypothetical Questions which may be put; but with reference to what has fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), I am 1162 by no means prepared to say that an Amendment on the Appropriation Bill limiting the Supplies to three months would be out of Order. As to the Question whether the hon. Member for Poole was in Order, I may say that although he made no Motion, yet he gave Notice of calling attention to certain matters, and it appeared to me that he was in Order, because he raised the question of supplies in a most direct manner. For instance, he asked whether it was proper that the naval forces of the country should be sent to Turkish waters in favour of a certain policy, and he also called in question the conduct of the diplomatic agents of the Crown, for whom Supplies had been appropriated. I think it right to observe that I interrupted the hon. Member for Dundee when he proposed to speak generally of the Constitution of the country, and it certainly appeared to me that such a discussion was scarcely relevant to the Appropriation Bill.
THE O'DONOGHUEobserved, that it was unnecessary to corroborate anything that fell from Mr. Speaker; but he might be allowed to say that in reference to a Motion he placed on the Paper on the Appropriation Bill, he had received a communication in accordance with the ruling which had been referred to.
§ MR. E. JENKINS,in reply to the remark of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this discussion had come on by surprise, said, that last night he gave the Speaker Notice that he should bring the subject forward to-day.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that with reference to the observation of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair that the hon. Member for Dundee was discussing the Constitution of the country, all he could say was that from what had fallen from that hon. Gentleman he inferred that he was about to make remarks precisely of a similar nature to those which fell last year from the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition.