HC Deb 23 August 1881 vol 265 cc735-7
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he desired to ask a Question with regard to the following Notice of Motion, which stood on the Paper in the name of the Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett). The Motion was as follows:— On Second Reading of Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, to move, That the policy pursued by Her Majesty's present Government with regard to the Foreign and Imperial relations of Great Britain has tended to the dishonour and disintegration of the Empire, and has isolated England in Europe. Now, on the 11th of August, 1876, Mr. E. Jenkins made some observations upon the conduct of the then Government, which seemed to be of a similar nature to that pointed at in the Motion of the hon. Member on the second reading of the Appropriation Bill. He said that he desired to take that opportunity of making some general observations upon the conduct of the Government and the right hon. Gentleman at the head of it. Mr. Jenkins then proceeded a little way, when he was stopped by the Speaker, who stated that Motions on the Appropriation Bill must be relevant to the clauses of that Bill. The Question he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) wished to ask was whether the hon. Member for Eye would be in Order in making general observations on the whole field of foreign policy of the Government, or would he be bound to confine himself to a Question relating to the Bill?

MR. SPEAKER

As the House is aware, Amendments on the different stages of the Appropriation Bill are governed by the same rule as is applicable to other Bills. They must be relevant to the Bill, or some part of it, instead of having the same latitude as is given on Motions for going into Supply. On looking at the Amendment of the hon. Member for Eye, I find that the terms of it are of a most general nature, and, undoubtedly, on the face of it, it does not apply to any clause in the Appropriation Bill. At the same time, if the hon. Member shows that his Amendment does affect the question of Supply to be granted to the Crown for the Public Service, he could put himself in Order. But as the Amendment stands, so far as I can judge, it has no relevance to the Appropriation Bill before the House.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

said, that last night he slightly altered the wording of the Motion, and it was then accepted by the Clerk at the Table. He had been previously informed by a high authority that he could bring forward the Motion on the Appropriation Bill as well as on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply. He put the ques- tion again last night, and was again informed that it was so. He wished to know whether, if he raised the question on Supply, by showing that the Government policy had not been such as to warrant the House in granting the Appropriation Bill, he should be in Order?

MR. SPEAKER

I am not prepared to say until I hear how the hon. Member proposes to deal with the subject.