HC Deb 13 May 1895 vol 33 cc1058-73
MR. HENRY LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

Sir,—I have to call your attention to the presence in this House of a nobleman—[Cries of "Stranger!"]—who at the last General Election was elected a Member of this House, who took his seat accordingly, and who since then, I am informed, has become a Peer of the realm. I have to ask you, Sir, in these circumstances, whether the noble Lord has a right to be within the Bar of the House, and, if not, what steps will be taken in consequence of his being here?

*MR. SPEAKER

Without anticipating the action of the House upon this suggestion, I think it is right I should ask the noble Lord whether it is the fact that, since he last sat in this House, he has succeeded to the Peerage of his father, the late Earl of Selborne?

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Sir,—I am not a Lord of Parliament, but I am a Peer of the realm.

*MR. SPEAKER

I also ask the noble Lord the further question, whether he has applied, or whether it is his immediate intention to apply, for a Writ of Summons to the House of Peers?

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Sir,—I have not so applied. It is not my intention at present so to apply; and I claim still to be the duly elected representative of West Edinburgh.

*MR. SPEAKER

The right of the noble Lord to vote is a question for the House itself, not for me. But I think it is right I should point out to the House, that although many cases have occurred of Members standing in the position in which the noble Lord is at this moment, there is not an instance on record, as far as I am able to discover, of such a claim being made as that made by the noble Lord to sit and vote in this House. Under these circumstances I must ask the noble Lord to withdraw below the Bar until the question of his right to sit and vote has been decided by the House.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE rose from his seat, and having passed along the Gangway to the floor of the House, bowed to Mr. Speaker, and retired below the Bar.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Sir, In these circumstances, unusual and important from a constitutional point of view, the House will expect from me, in. the position I occupy, that I should tender some advice to the House as to the course that ought to be pursued. I have had occasion carefully to consider this matter in reference to the Committee which has sat on the vacating of seats and the granting of the Chiltern Hundreds in the case of Lord Coleridge, and, without endeavouring to bind anybody by the opinions I am about to express, I should like to state to the House what, as far as I can ascertain, is the Parliamentary law in reference to this matter. I will endeavour to state three propositions as clearly and concisely as I can. I put out of consideration altogether the case of Scotch or Irish peerages, because they are governed by entirely different rules and laws which were laid down by Statute at the time of the Union, and I must be understood now to speak only of an English peerage, governed only by what I may call the common law of Parliament. Now, as far as I can ascertain the matter, I think these propositions are correct. An English peer by patent—I say by patent because the old rules with reference to peerage by writ are somewhat different—I am speaking now of the case of an English peerage by patent, which is the case of the Earl of Selborne—on his succession to the peerage he becomes not only a peer of the realm (which the noble Lord stated that he was), but also a Lord of Parliament. The distinction which the noble Lord has drawn is one in which I cannot agree. The second proposition is that his right to a seat in the House of Lords is as much inherent and inseparable from his succession as his title to the dignity. I believe those two things are inherent in the succession. He cannot divest himself either of the right to the dignity (of that there can be no question) or to a seat in the House of Lords any more than a Member of the House of Commons can divest himself of his seat by resignation or abstention. We all know that can only be done under the statute of Anne by the acceptance of office. The noble Lord may think fit to abandon his title. He may call himself "Mr. Palmer," but he would still be Earl of Selborne, or he might abstain from performing the necessary formalities qualifying him to exercise his right to sit and vote in House of Lords. His right would exist all the same. The preliminaries taken in order to obtain the writ of summons are proof of birth, marriage of parents, production of patent, and so forth. But these are only formalities to enable a right to be exercised which already exists. In the same way a Member elected to the House of Commons cannot sit and vote until he has brought his writ to the Table and taken the oath, but he is a Member of the House of Commons from the date of, and by virtue of, his election, before he comes to the Table, and I imagine that if he were called upon to serve on a jury—from which a Member of the House of Commons is exempt—the exemption would take place though he had not come to the Table and taken the oath. In like manner, on his succession to the peerage, he becomes a Lord of Parliament, and incapable of being a Member of the House of Commons, though he may not have qualified by taking out the writ of summons to sit in the House of Lords. The writ of summons does not create the right. It presupposes that it exists. It is like a summons to a meeting of a body of which a man is already a member—for instance, the Privy Council. There are many Members of the Privy Council. When a Cabinet meets a summons goes out to certain members who sit in the Privy Council. The summons and the inquiry upon which it is founded is only to ascertain the individual in whom the right exists. The practice of the House of Commons has been not to issue a new writ until the writ of summons has gone in the House of Lords; because that is the best and most authentic manner in which the House can be informed that one of its Members has become a peer. But in the interval, before the issue of the writ of summons, sometimes there is a considerable interval. In that interval no Member of this House has ever, in fact, sat or voted after his succession to the peerage, and it was to terminate that interregnum that the Chiltern Hundreds was given to Lord Coleridge. The writ of summons, however, though the simplest and best means of informing this House that one of its Members has succeeded to a peerage, is not the only method, and in case for any reason the writ of summons is deliberately withheld, the House will make its own inquiry into the facts, and if satisfied of the succession to a peerage, will issue a new writ. This was laid down distinctly in 1830, in the case which occurred in the borough of Beer Alston. An hon. Member moved— That the Speaker do issue his warrant for a new writ for the borough of Beer Alston in the room of Lord Louvain, now Earl of Beverley. The hon. Member said:— The Speaker having inquired, when the subject was mentioned to him yesterday, whether the usual words, 'now summoned up to the other House of Parliament,' were added to the Motion, and having been answered in the negative, was pleased to recommend that reference should be made to the precedents for the purpose of seeing whether such addition in the terms of the Motion was not essential. Therefore, there was a Motion made without allegation that a summons be issued, which is the usual, and, under the particular circumstances, the proper allegation, because that is the evidence upon which the House acts as being the best evidence that can be got. But the Speaker laid down this doctrine (in which I may be permitted to say I entirely concur). He said:— There could certainly be no doubt that if a Member of this House became a peer the House can order a new writ to be issued in his room, and consequently unseat him without the House of Lords having issued such summons. That is the critical point. But, then, the House would require evidence, positive evidence, that such a Member had really become a peer. This had been the uniform course. The House must have sufficient proof, and it was true that the issue of a summons by the other House was not essential to the sufficiency of proof. The issuing of such a summons alone would be sufficient proof. It had always been taken as such. But it did not follow from that that the House might not have sufficient proof without the summons, or if they were negligent in issuing the summons such conduct on the part of the Lords could not estop the House of Commons from doing that which the law of the land justified them in doing, or in calling upon them to do—to issue the writ. That is to say, if there were laches in the House of Lords, or the House of Lords deliberately did not issue the summons, the House of Commons would act on the fact that the Member had succeeded to the peerage; and, in fact, that is so, if the House of Lords not only had not issued the summons but had refused to issue the summons. So it is perfectly plain that the same principle applies whether there are laches in not applying for, or in the House of Lords not issuing the writ of summons. The Speaker in 1830 repeated, that the House must have sufficient evidence of the fact that a person had become a peer. Now, is that a true doctrine?

MR. LEONARD COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

What was done in that case?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I am going to state what was done— Thereupon the Speaker said he had received information that Lord Louvain was going to apply for a writ of summons, and having received an assurance that that course would be taken he requested Mr. Leader to withdraw the Motion, which he did. It was for this reason, no doubt, that you, Sir, put the question to the noble Lord, whether he intended to apply for a writ of summons. If he said he intended to apply for a writ of summons, that would determine the case. Then, of course, there would be no reason to do anything more. It might be left until the writ of summons was issued, and we could proceed upon it— As soon as the fact of the succession to a peerage has been ascertained by this House, the writ will issue, of course, the Member becoming in fact a Lord of Parliament, and as such incapable of sitting in the House of Commons. The House, therefore, if satisfied that Lord Wolmer has succeeded to the peerage, and consequently become a Lord of Parliament, would be justified, and, indeed—as Speaker Manners-Sutton, in the Beer Alston casa, said—would be called upon to issue a new writ for West Edinburgh, having made such inquiries as may be necessary to ascertain the fact of his succession to the peerage. It is true that, in answer to your question, Sir, the noble Lord said he had succeeded to a peerage. But I do not think the House could be satisfied with that evidence alone, which ought to be taken in the formal manner in which it would be taken in the House of Lords, before the writ of summons was issued, the evidence being there being marriage of parents, succession, and patent. A man might think he had succeeded to a peerage and be mistaken, as happened in the case of Lord Dursley, who claimed the Berkeley peerage. Therefore the House of Commons should satisfy itself of the succession of Lord Wolmer to the Earldom of Selborne, and, having done that, I have pointed out what its decision would be. There is no doubt but that the House will take a proper course, and the noble Lord, by bowing to your recommendation to retire until the matter has been decided, has given us ample time to take a proper course in this matter. There is a Committee sitting now on the question of the vacating of seats, and I submit to the House that it would be convenient that we should refer to that Committee to ascertain whether or not Lord Wolmer has succeeded to the Earldom of Selborne. If the Committee report to us that he has so succeeded, it will then, I imagine, be the duty of those who are responsible for the proceedings of this House to move thereupon that a new writ be issued, and, if that course commends itself to the House, it would be a proper thing to put down on the paper this evening a motion of reference to that Committee to report to us on the facts as they find them. In order that there may be no misapprehension as to the question raised, I would submit that the instruction to the Committee should be that the fact of the succession of Lord Wolmer to the Earldom of Selborne be ascertained in the same manner as that in which the House of Lords would ascertained that fact if it were asked to issue a writ of summons. We should then be in exactly the same position as we should be in on the issue of a writ of summons by the House of Lords, only we should have made that investigation for ourselves in the absence of an investigation by the House of Lords which will not be made, but will be defeated by the noble Lord not applying for a writ of summons.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)

In substance I entirely concur in the course suggested by the Leader of the House, although I have one small suggestion to make with regard to the method in which that suggestion should be carried into effect. While I agree with the general principles laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, at all events we must regard with great sympathy the attempt made by my noble Friend, Lord Selborne, still to remain a Member of this House so as to be able to work in a sphere which he has so long adorned. For my own part, if my settled conviction on this subject could be shaken, it would be shaken by my sense of the great loss, not only to the Party to which I belong, but the whole House has suffered in the course of one week by the loss of two of its Members who have done so much to adorn our debates. Putting aside all legal technicalities, and putting out of sight all precedents and all those utterances, occasionally ambiguous, and, I fear, sometimes contradictory, which may have been made by various authorities, what we have to consider is the broad, practical effect which would follow from the success of the policy which Lord Selborne desires us for the first time to take. It seems to me that every subject of Her Majesty has a right to be either a representative in this House or in the other but that no subject can have a right to choose what his status shall be. We cannot, in addition to Peers of Parliament and Commoners, have a third class to whose own good will it shall be left to decide whether they shall have the status of Commoners or the status of Peers. It is evident that in that case I an ambiguous class would be brought into existence if we were not ourselves to insist upon the course recommended by the right hon.. Gentleman opposite, of ourselves moving a writ if a Peer of the realm did not apply to be made a Peer of Parliament or for a writ of summons to be issued. Under those circumstances, I conceive that it is a matter of secondary importance and interest to try to extract a perfectly consistent and harmonious theory from all the utterances of great lawyers and great speakers on this question during the last 500 years. That would be a task worthy of the antiquarian, and perhaps an appropriate occupation for the Committee which is now sitting upstairs of which I am a Member. But upon the broad issue—it is not a technical or legal issue—raised, there can be no doubt that by what is called the hereditary principle a man must accept a particular status, and cannot be allowed to choose for himself whether he shall retain some other status. There is a case not wholly analogous to that of my noble Friend, which has also come under our notice within the last few days, which it may well be worth the while of the House to consider, and which might with propriety be referred to the same Committee. If a Peer succeeds to a deceased married brother, he is not, I understand, qualified for the other House for some months, and yet, according to habitual practice, it is not customary that he should continue to sit in this House. That appears to me to be extremely unjust. There is a case in our history which occurs most readily to us, and which shows the danger to the community of a Commoner suddenly being made a Peer by the death of his married brother, and being unable to address either branch of the Legislature in his capacity of a Minister. If Lord Chatham had died and left a widow, Mr. Pitt, according to our practice, would have been a Member of neither this nor of the other House of Parliament for some months; at any rate, he would not have been qualified to take part in the Debates of either House. That is an anomaly quite unjustifiable in theory, and it ought to be removed. But that anybody should be able to do that which my noble Friend now proposes to do—namely, to defer to a convenient season his becoming a Member of the other House and during that season to remain a Member of this House—would not be consonant with the interests of the other House, and certainly it appears to me that it would be very derogatory to our own dignity. May I say that if we are going to appoint a Committee to inquire whether the present Lord Selborne is a, person to whom a writ of summons ought to be issued for the other House, I think that that might be referred to a different and smaller Committee than that unwieldy and rather august body to whom has been entrusted the duty of investigating an interesting historical matter, and of which I am a Member.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

I am sorry to admit that I do not agree with either of the two Leaders of the House. I confess that my sympathies are wholly with my noble Friend in this matter. If any way could be found in which my noble Friend could continue his services in this House, I for one should be very glad to assist in bringing about such a result, but I think that it is perfectly fitting that a question of this delicacy and importance, which has now arisen for the first time, should be submitted to a Committee. I complain, however, of the nature of the reference which is to be made, and which I think the House, upon consideration, will see is altogether too limited. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes that it shall be referred to a Committee which is now sitting, and the reference contains instructions to report on all the circumstances connected with the vacating of seats. We—the Committee—are therefore instructed to report on the principle involved as well as upon individual cases. Let me put a case to show the absurd position in which we may find ourselves. Supposing that this Committee, after carefully considering the matter, came to the conclusion that a Peer of the realm was not necessarily a Lord of Parliament. That is possible; but under the reference they would have in the first place to report—[Cries of "Order."]

*MR. SPEAKER

I beg to remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is no Motion before the House, and that notice has been given of the kind of Motion that will be proposed, and when the Motion is made there will be an opportunity of discussing the terms of the reference. The right hon. Gentleman can speak only by the indulgence of the House.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

I beg pardon. I was under the misapprehension that the right hon. Gentleman had proposed the Motion.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I did not propose the Motion, because I thought that, in relation to a question of this gravity, the Motion ought to be put upon the Paper. I will fall in with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that there should be a small and independent Committee appointed to inquire into this matter.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes to put the Motion down for Thursday next. It cannot be taken after Twelve o'clock. It would be most convenient to defer the whole discussion until the Motion is on the Paper.

MR. BALFOUR

Will the right hon. Gentleman give notice of his Motion tonight?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Yes, to-night, for discussion to-morrow.

MR. GEORGE CURZON (Lancashire, Southport)

said, he knew that it was only with the indulgence of the House that he could make a few observations, but as his noble Friend had been directed to retire below the Bar he could not speak on his own behalf. [Cries of "Order."]

*MR. SPEAKER

I think that it would be better that the hon. Member should postpone his remarks until the Motion is upon the Paper, as they might lead to a general discussion on the subject.

MR. COURTNEY

said, that he should be sorry to do anything irregular. He would like to point out that they were in a very extraordinary position. [Cries of "Order."]

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I would rather abstain, in the interest of the noble Lord; but if the right hon. Gentleman desires it I will move this moment that the Writ be issued, and that will put an end to the whole matter. I do not think the two right hon. Friends of the noble Lord have been very well advised, but in these circumstances I move that a new Writ be issued for West Edinburgh.

*MR. SPEAKER rose to put the question, when—

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said: I will state my reason for making the Motion. I do not mean to press it, but it will put the House legally in order, and the discussion, if there is to be a discussion upon that, may be adjourned. I think that is the proper way in which to raise the matter, and I shall move that a new Writ be issued for West Edinburgh, and then we shall see what course the House will desire to have taken.

*MR. SPEAKER

put the question that a new Writ be issued for the election of a Member for West Edinburgh "in place of Lord Wolmer, who is now Earl of Selborne."

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

No allegation—merely "in place of Lord Wolmer."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

I cannot help thinking that the action taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is somewhat hasty—[Cries of "Hear, hear!" and "No, no!"], and has placed the House in a somewhat difficult position. What was the reason given by the right hon. Gentleman? Having, in the first instance, told the House that it would be impossible, and contrary to precedent, to move for the Writ until, at all events, proof had been given of the accession of Lord Selborne to the Peerage, and some days must necessarily elapse while that proof was being sought for, the right hon. Gentleman then gets up and moves the immediate issue of the Writ in a fit of temper. [Loud Ministerial cries of "Oh!"]

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I must object to a statement of that kind, which the right hon. Gentleman knows to be unfounded. [Cheers and cries of "Oh, oh!"] I have made that Motion in order to enable the right hon. Gentleman to speak. It was necessary to have a Motion before the House in order that anybody might speak. My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Curzon) desired to speak. I have already stated that I was not about to press that Motion to a Division to-day, but I have made that Motion with the intention of an Adjournment in order that the House might take proper measures with reference to the Committee. To state that I have made that Motion in a fit of temper shows that, I think, for the moment the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten himself.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said: Before I repeat the statement which I have just made I will justify it. [Cries of "Withdraw!"] The right hon. Gentleman did not say anything of the kind when he made this Motion. [Cries of "He did!"] When he made this Motion the reason he gave—[Cries of "Order!"] Do not let the House run away. I am sure I shall recall to the recollection of hon. Gentlemen the exact words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said his right hon. Friends—meaning my right hon. Friend beside me (Mr. Courtney) and myself—had been very ill-advised, and in consequence of that he would make the Motion. That is what I call making the Motion in a fit of temper. [Cheers and cries of "Oh!" What I have to say in the matter is that the moment you, Mr. Speaker, pointed out to me that there was no Motion before the House I stopped abruptly, having only just commenced my argument, and agreed to reserve it till such time as the Motion should properly be laid before the House. What justification was that for the Chancellor of the Exchequer jumping up and immediately moving the issue of the Writ? Having done so, no doubt he recognised the mistake he had made. [Laughter.] Of course he did. He recognised that he was going to ask the House to do the very thing which ten minutes before he had told them they could not do, namely, to issue a Writ far West Edinburgh without knowing whether Lord Selborne is a Peer or not. I really think that it was quite unnecessary for him to make a Motion of that kind. We were perfectly content that the matter should go over till a future day, and that the question, which, after all, ought to be discussed in perfect good humour, should be postponed. For my part I am totally unable to under-seand the feeling evinced in a question of high constitutional importance. Surely we ought to be able to discuss that with perfect coolness and impartiality. I recognise that I am, on the present occasion, at any rate, in a minority in this House. It is evidently not a Party question. There are at least as many hon. Members on the other side who disagree with me as on this side; but I hope, notwithstanding that, that the House will allow me very briefly to state the reasons which have led me to object to the course proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Bear in mind what it is we are discussing—nominally whether the Writ should issue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been good enough to explain that he is perfectly willing that this matter should be adjourned while the question is referred to a Committee. My first point is this—and upon that I hope I shall have the general assent of the House—that if you refer it to a Committee, you shall refer, not part of the question, but the whole question—you shall, in fact, refer to the Committee what has already been referred to the Committee on the Vacation of Seats—namely, whether a person who succeeds and becomes a Peer of the realm does of necessity become a Lord of Parliament, and is thereby excluded from sitting in this House. If you do not refer the whole question, you will run the risk of settling this question in a sense which may be inconsistent with the settlement of the general question. My second point—and this I address to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—is this. I think my hon. Friend suggested that the matter should be referred, not to the Committee already sitting, but to an independent Committee. There again, if I may venture to submit to him an objection, it appears to me that it would not do to have two Committees sitting on the same subject at the same time, for you might have the extraordinary result of two inconsistent decisions. Surely you must leave this whole question to the decision of one Committee, whether it be the existing Committee or a new one. There is one other point: that is, the question whether you have gone far enough in referring exclusively to the status of Lord Selborne. You, Mr. Speaker, said, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeated, the statement that there never had been, to the best of your knowledge and belief, any previous case in which a Peer of the realm had either sat in this House or claimed to sit in this House. But I am under the impression that that is not the case. I am under the impression that there has been a case of a gentleman who is entitled to claim his position as a Peer of the realm and a Lord of Parliament, who has refrained from applying for a Writ of Summons, who has refrained from taking any of the steps necessary in order to establish his position as a Peer, who has appeared as a candidate before a const tuency, has been elected by that constituency, and is now sitting in this House. (An hon. MEMBER: "A Scotch Peer.") No. It is an English Peerage that is in question. [Cries of"Name?"] If that be so should not the reference to the Committee be wide enough to cover that case also? Is it right and proper, if this matter is for the first time to be decided, that reference should be made to a single case which has been openly and frankly brought before the House when there is, as I believe, one case—there may be others—to which exactly the same argument will apply? As to the general question, I think it has been very fairly stated by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. As I understand the matter, there is no statutory provision in regard to this subject. My noble Friend can sit and vote in this House, if this House will allow him, without incurring any penalties, or without its being in the power of any person to contest the matter in a Court of Law. It is, therefore, wholly a question for this House. The House of Commons has never, so far as I know, decided the question heretofore. It has to decide a new point—a point no doubt of the greatest importance, and it must decide it, I think, as a matter of expediency. Therefore I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. But my right hon. Friend goes on to say that, dealing with it as a question of expediency, it cannot be expedient that a man should now for the first time be allowed to choose his own status—whether he shall be a Lord of Parliament or a Member of this House. I do not think that accurately describes the situation; I believe that choice has already been exercised, and therefore, may be exercised again. The case I should quote is that of Lord Palmerston. He deliberately chose his status. He might, by making his claim, have become a Peer of Ireland, and as such he would probably have become a Lord of Parliament. But in order to avoid that, and with no other reason whatever, he refused to make good his Irish Peerage, and sat and voted as Leader of the House of Commons. Therefore, I say, the point is not new. There have been precedents, although not raised in quite so simple a form as the one before us. I hope the House will not allow its prejudices to be enlisted, but will allow of a full and fair inquiry, which will take into account not merely the case of my noble Friend, but all similar cases that may exist at present or may hereafter be brought before us, so that once for all the principle may be decided by the House. One word more before I sit down. If we were dealing with this question as a matter of expediency do not let us pass over altogether the possibility of the interests of the constituency. What is to happen if this House practically expels my noble Friend, or decides that he shall not be allowed to sit and to vote? Suppose thereupon that he goes down for a new election, and suppose that his constituency of West Edinburgh, sympathising with him and willing that this great constitutional question should be fought out, re-elects him to this House. This House has been engaged from time to time in contests with the constituencies, but although it has always had the legal power and the executive power, it has in the long run always been worsted. What I would urge is, that it is worth while considering very carefully what course we take, lest we should find once more we are acting in a way which is really hostile to the intentions and desire of the constituency,

MR. GEORGE CURZON

asked whether it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to move the new Writ that afternoon, but to state the terms of the proposed reference to the Committee before the close of the Sitting?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I will consider that suggestion. My notion is, that it will be most convenient to the House that we should not continue this discussion now, but that we should adjourn the Debate on the Motion for the Writ, and I will consult the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition as to the Committee and put down the terms of reference, and then I would propose that we should take the Motion tomorrow night.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have no great desire to take much further part in this Debate, but I think it would be probably more convenient to the House if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to put down his Motion as the first Order to-morrow. There is evidently a great divergence of opinion on this very grave question. As I gathered from the cheers of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, there are great constitutional authorities who do not take the view of the right hon. Gentleman opposite or myself, and I think it would be better we should deal with the Motion to-morrow as the first business; nor do I see any reason why it should last more than two hours or two hours and a half. The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to say he will consult me as to the terms of reference. Probably he and I will find it very easy to come to an agreement, because we agree as to our general policy; but there must evidently be an opportunity given to those Gentlemen who do not agree with us to put down Amendments. I hope, therefore, it will be found possible to put the Resolution in their hands informally to-night, so that before to-morrow they will be able to give notice of their Amendments.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I will try to do that. I do not think there will be much difference between the right hon. Gentleman and myself as to what the form of reference should be. Of course this is a matter of grave importance, and I shall not resist the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that the Motion should be the first Order. I hope there will not be more time than is necessary occupied on the subject. I think now I will withdraw this Motion, which I only made in order to regularise our discussion, with a view to substituting for it the Motion for the reference to a Committee tomorrow.

MR. COURTNEY

wished to point out that the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the Opposition, weighty and powerful as they were, must not go forth to the country as statements absolutely acquiesced in by the bulk of the House, because very different opinions might be expressed on the subject.

Motion for the issue of the Writ withdrawn.