§ MR. ROUNDELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering the abuse to which the practice of putting Questions to Ministers is being brought, he contemplates making any proposal for a change in the system?
§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, that before the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question, he should like to ask him whether his attention had been drawn to the fact that in a list of 28 Questions, two only stood in the names of Conservative Members, while 17 were by Irish Members, and nine by Liberal Members, and whether he had noticed that that was by no means an unusual proportion?
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he had considered that if the Irish had a Parliament of their own they would not have to ask any Questions in that House?
MR. GLADSTONEPerhaps if we were so much entertained with all Questions as we have been in relation to this one, we might be more disposed to spend a considerable fraction of our time upon them, as undoubtedly we do. I do not propose to enter into any controversial matters; but I may say in relation to this 1726 question that the inquiry made by my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Roundell) is an indication of the sense which prevails in what I may call the non-Questioning part of the House that there is considerable danger in this direction; but I think it better, however, to avoid saying anything which might be construed in the nature of a censure. I think we must feel that the conduct of Members cannot be judged simply by any reference to the number of Questions put. We must have regard to the urgency, or what they deem to be the urgency, of the topics contained in them, and therefore I am very far from presuming to censure or to say anything which may be interpreted in the way of censure. But, generally, this subject is undoubtedly deserving of consideration—it ought to be a comprehensive consideration, and could not be dealt with by the Government off-hand and in an isolated manner. That would be my answer to my hon. Friend, whom I thank very much for calling my attention once more to the subject. Perhaps I may say a word on my own behalf in regard to Questions. A practice has sprung up—I am not complaining of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) or anyone at all—but a practice has sprung up of late years of putting to the First Lord of the Treasury Questions which are purely Departmental. If I may say so, there are several objections to that practice. I am compelled sometimes to ask the Representative of a Department to answer for me; I am conscious that this appears to be discourteous, and I resort to it with reluctance, and only when I find it necessary; but I do not like to do it, because it has a discourteous appearance, and yet it is a matter of absolute necessity. Then I may say, particularly at times of unusual pressure in the House, that this practice prevails, and the House will readily understand that at a time of unusual pressure it is extremely difficult to do justice to Questions which do not come within my own notice as First Minister of the Crown. And, lastly, that being so, I am not able to do them as much justice in many cases as would be done if they were put directly to the responsible Minister. There is, I know, a vague impression, perhaps even in this House to some extent, and largely among the general public, that 1727 the Prime Minister constitutes a sort of tribunal of appeal from the decisions of Chief of Departments. That is not a principle in our system of Government. There is not, generally speaking, any such appeal at all except in relation to the Treasury, and that, therefore, is peculiar. These Questions rather have a tendency to encourage the belief that there is such an appeal. I beg, again, to say, Sir, that I make no complaint of anyone with regard to Questions of this class; at the same time, I may suggest that it would be for the public convenience if they could be limited, and I believe it would be for the benefit of those who put them.