HC Deb 05 June 1899 vol 72 cc319-24
MR. J. G. SWIFT MACNEILL

I wish to direct the attention of the House at the first available moment to what I conceive to be a gross breach of the privileges of this House, and to put myself in order I will read the resolution which I intend to submit to the House. I shall not detain the House five minutes, and then we shall hear what the First Lord of the Treasury has to say, and I wish him a happy deliverance. The resolution is this;— That the action of the Lord Chancellor in presenting to the House of Lords a message from Her Majesty recommending that she should be enabled to grant to Lord Kitchener a sum of £30,000 is a departure from ancient constitutional precedent; is contrary to the usage of Parliament; and is a gross breach of the privilege of this House, inasmuch as the message attributes to the House of Lords the power of initiating money grants, which alone appertains to the House of Commons, instead of concurring in these grants That is absolutely flagrant. The first authority that I would like to quote to the House is Sir Erskine May, and I will only quote two sentences. He says, "The responsibility discharged by the House of Lords in the granting of supplies for the service of the time is concurrence, and not initiation." I need not remind the House that, though this is the Queen's message, it is in reality a message for which the Ministers are responsible. The message to the House of Lords in this case is identical in words to that received by this House, as if there were a concurrent and co-ordinate jurisdiction, which there is not. We are told that this message is identical with the message which came to the House in reference to Sir Garnet Wolseley in 1874; but in that case there was a message conveyed to the House of Lords, as in Kitchener's case, with this difference—Her Majesty, taking into consideration the eminent services of Major-General Sir Garnet Wolseley in conducting the Ashantee campaign, and desiring to confer some signal mark of her favour, "recommends to the House of Lords to concur" with the House of Commons in enabling Her Majesty to grant to Sir Garnet Wolseley £30,000. Those were also the terms that were adopted in 1841 and in 1857, when in similar cases the House of Lords was asked to concur. We have the words of Mr. Speaker Onslow, who said Ministers had always sent these messages to both Houses, but the distinction of the wording was that the initiation in making the grant of money is to be only with the Commons, as is done in the Speech from the Throne. I put this matter before the House as a matter for its observation, and I think it is a gross breach of privilege. With these words I beg to move the Resolution and bring it up to the chair.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That the action of the Lord Chancellor in presenting to the House of Lords a Message from Her Majesty, recommending that she should be enabled to grant to Lord Kitchener a sum of £30,000, is a departure from ancient constitutional precedents, contrary to the usage of Parliament, and a gross breach of the privileges of this House, inasmuch as the Message attributes to the House of Lords a power of initiating money grants which alone appertains to the House of Commons, instead of concurring in those grants."—(Mr. Swift MacNeill.)

MR. CHANNING (Northampton)

I think my hon. friend is amply justified in the course he has taken in bringing this matter before the House. A difference in the form of words may be a matter of serious importance, and it certainly does seem to me that the difference between a direct invitation to the House of Lords to enable the Queen to carry out a grant of a certain sum of money, and a message to the House of Lords to concur with this House in so doing, is a very grave difference indeed, and one which amply justifies my hon. friend in moving his resolution. The proper course for the Government in this matter would clearly have been to proceed by a Resolution, base a Bill upon the Resolution, and send the Bill to the House of Lords. At any rate there is a vast and vital difference between the resolution in 1874 and the present one. I beg to second the Resolution.

*MR. SPEAKER

I am in very great doubt whether I should allow this matter to be brought before the House as a question of privilege at all. My reason for being in doubt is that it is in any case necessary that the House of Lords should take some action for the purpose of enabling the grant to be made. The Queen by her Message asks the House of Lords to enable her to make such a grant. What the hon. Member is now doing is to ask the House to assume that the message is to be interpreted as asking the House of Lords to act in a way in which they are not entitled to act, and contrary to the privilege of this House, although the language is consistent with a request to that House to act only in a constitutional way. I am, however, very anxious not to take upon myself the responsibility of a decision where there is any ground for suggesting that the matter may be one involving a question of privilege for the judgment of the House. The only point is whether the word "concur' which could be read into the message by implication, ought to have been expressly used. I may point out on the question of precedent that in 1883, when motions were made for grants by way of pensions to Lord Alcester and Lord Wolseley, two resolutions were submitted to the House of Lords, in one of which the word "concur" was used, and in the other left out, and the same words were used in the latter Resolution as on the present occasion.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I was not aware that the hon. Member was going to raise this point. I understand that he makes two allegations—one that the course pursued by the Lord Chancellor and presumably by the House of Lords is contrary to the precedents and practice of Parliament; and the other that it is a breach of the privileges of this House. Sir, I challenge both those statements. Take the second point first. Mr. Speaker has already pointed out that the concurrence of the House of Lords and the action of the House of Lords is absolutely necessary to enable this grant to be given. It is a pure assumption on the part of the hon. Gentleman, which he does not himself seriously hold—an assumption which none of us hold, and an assumption which not a single person in this House believes to be true—that the House of Lords, in the case of the grant to Lord Kitchener, are going to violate those ancient constitutional usages which are divided between the two Houses of Parliament in different measures, the responsibility arising from the passing of the Finance Acts. So much for the point of substance. On the point of form, it is only necessary that I should repeat to the House what has already been indicated by Mr. Speaker—namely, that so high a constitutional authority as Mr.Gladstone, a statesman who was never supposed to be oblivious of the constitutional privileges of the House of which he was so long a distinguished ornament. In the time of Mr. Gladstone the following resolution was brought down to the House, and was read to the House by the Leader of the House, in that case Lord Granville. The message was:—

"VICTORIA R. Her Majesty, taking into consideration the important services rendered by Garnet Joseph Lord Wolseley, general in Her Majesty's Army, in the course of the recent expedition to Egypt, and being desirous to confer some signal mark of her favour for those distinguished services, recommends the House of Lords to enable Her Majesty to make provision to secure for the said Garnet Joseph Lord Wolseley and his next surviving male heir the sum of £2,000 per annum. On the constitutional point the words I have read out are precisely on all fours with the gracious message which the Lord Chancellor, on Friday last, read out in the House of Lords. Whereas it is clear that there, is on the one hand, no substantial invasion of our privileges intended by the House of Lords, so it is equally plain, on the other hand, that what they have done is in no sense contrary to tradition, or precedent, or the usage of Parliament. I hope, under these circumstances, the hon. Gentleman will not think it necessary to press his motion to a Division, and that he will permit the House to proceed to the discussion which it is anxiously waiting for.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)

I think we are indebted to my hon. friend for bringing this matter forward (Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh!" and laughter). Although some hon. Members opposite appear to differ from me on this point, I am sure the Leader of the House does not differ from me. I am sure we are indebted to my hon. friend for having turned his watchful eye upon the of the proceedings in another place. I conceive that the main point which he had in view has been substantially gained by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House having formally disclaimed the slightest intention to depart from former precedents and usage in this matter. It is unfortunate, from the point of view of those of us who take a rigid view of the relations between the two Houses in this matter, that there is a precedent containing the very words which are now complained of, because otherwise we might have had some justification in discerning an insidious attempt on the part of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to exalt the other House of Parliament at the expense of this. But after the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, and after his being able to adduce a precedent coming from an unimpeachable source for the words which are now being used, I trust my hon. friend will be content with the substantial victory he has gained, and not put the House to any further trouble.

MR. DILLON

I rose for the purpose of stating that, while asking my hon. friend not to put the House to the trouble of a Division, I do not accept the First Lord of the Treasury's statement that there is a precedent for what is now being done. If I am rightly informed, the precedent he alluded to was on an occasion when the Message was made the foundation of a Bill, and if that be true it is no precedent whatever. Many years ago, in the days of Mr. Speaker Onslow, in order to settle these disputes, it was agreed and clearly set forth that the two Houses should enact on the same day, but that the Message in each House should be in different terms, and it was on that specific understanding that the two Houses came to an agreement. And now the right hon. Gentleman seeks to establish a proposition that it is in accordance with precedent that what has been clearly set forth is to be departed from, and that the two Messages to the two Houses are to be in identical words. I hold that this procedure is not in accordance with precedent. This is a distinct breach of the privileges of this House, and it is only because I know that the House desires to go on with the actual question before it that I urge my hon. friend not to press his motion to a Division.

MR. J. G. SWIFT MACNEILL

Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I will withdraw my motion, and accept the moral triumph.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.