MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that there is no Private Bill business, he sees any objection to public business commencing at a quarter past three?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI understand that the business of the swearing in 211 Members—the only business which practically has to precede public business—is now so far advanced that no objection exists to public business beginning at a quarter past three. Perhaps this may be taken as a public notification that we shall so commence on Monday. I beg now to move the resolution which stands in my name on the Paper, and which, I think, requires no word of explanation. It is exactly similar to the Order moved under like circumstances in the autumn of last year. It is designed entirely for the convenience of the House, and I hope that it will be accepted without discussion.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, during the Winter Sittings, no Motions for leave to bring in Bills be given except by a Minister of the Crown; that on every day Government Business do have precedence, and that at the conclusion thereof Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put; and that the provisions of Standing Order No. 56 be extended to all the days of the week."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)I do not rise to offer any objection to the intention of the resolution, but I think the phraseology of it is, to say the least, remarkable. It refers to the "Winter sittings." May I point out that if we are to meet again in January or February, that also would be a winter sitting. Would it not be better to substitute some other words, such as "until further notice"?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThis is a Sessional Order, and would only have operation as such.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)said he objected to that portion of the motion which provided that the Speaker should adjourn the House "without Question put." He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that on several occasions considerable inconvenience had been caused to Members by their being unable to ask for information to which they were entitled. He remembered one case, in regard to a colliery explosion, where that occurred, and where some information was very greatly desired, but could not be obtained because of a rule of this kind. Without offering any objection on the 212 present occasion to the motion, he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to agree to the elimination of that particular provision should such a resolution be brought forward in some future session.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESwished to ask the First Lord for some information as to the real import of the resolution. It stated that Standing Order 56 was to apply to every one of the sittings. What did that Standing Order do? It said that the question that Mr. Speaker leave the chair should not be put unless "on first going into Committee of Supply on the Army, Navy, or Civil Service Estimates respectively." Now this was a new House. There was no Committee of Supply and not even a Chairman of Committees. Could it rightly be said that Estimates presented to a new Parliament were Supplementary Estimates? Were they not rather original? Before he agreed to the resolution he wished to know what its effect would be. In his belief, according to the true and proper reading of Standing Order 56, its effect was that only on first going into Committee of Supply was it possible for Members to move Amendments and to raise a general discussion on the Estimate: He had derived, from the "Votes and Proceedings," the knowledge that a Supplementary Estimate for war was to be presented. It had, in fact, been presented. He was surprised that no information to that effect was conveyed in the Speech from the Throne, and that the Estimate had been smuggled on to the Table in some way hitherto unknown to the constitution and practice of the House. This resolution implied that hon. Members were to be deprived of the power of moving Amendments and raising a general discussion on the motion to go into Committee of Supply on those Estimates, although, according to his belief, this was a first going into Committee of Supply. If it did not imply that, then he was in accord with the resolution. As this was a new Parliament it certainly ought not to be deprived of its constitutional right of bringing forward grievances before it dealt with Supply; and if, as he feared, the resolution of the First Lord was intended to take away that right from them on this occasion, he, for one, would have to vote against the motion. He noticed that the new. Estimates were 213 called "Supplementary Estimates." Were they really so? This was a new Parliament, which knew nothing of what was done by the last Parliament. If it was to be taken to have such knowledge, then they might just as well go back to the Votes in Supply for the war year 1805 as to those of the last Parliament. He wished to put two questions, and he would address them to the Speaker, if he might be allowed to do so. First he would ask whether, when it came to consider the so-called Supplementary Estimates, the House would have the power of dealing with the policy and principles underlying the original Estimates. The Speaker's predecessor in the chair solemnly ruled, after a heated debate, that on the occasion of Supplementary Estimates being presented it was not competent for a Member of the House to go into the policy raised by the original Estimates, because on those original Estimates an opportunity had already been afforded for doing so. He was afraid that the feeling in official quarters was strongly against him, but he did press for an answer to his questions—whether this new Parliament was to be precluded from raising a general discussion on the motion that Mr. Speaker leave the chair, and whether it was to be prevented from dealing with the principle of the Estimates originally submitted, and to which these new Estimates professed to be "supplementary." This was a very important question, and he was anxious to have it made clear what would be the effect of passing the resolution.
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe second question of the hon. Member is premature. It may never arise, but if it does arise, and I am in the chair, I will then answer it. With regard to the first question, I understand it to be whether, when Committee of Supply is called on as an Order of the Day for the first time in the present session, the question must be proposed that I leave the chair, and debate may arise thereon. I think no such question can be proposed, and for this reason: The words of the Standing Order are that no such question can be put "unless on first going into Committee of Supply on the Army, Navy, and Civil Service Estimates respectively." The Army, Navy, and Civil Service Estimates mentioned there are, I take it, and I think they have always been understood to be, the Estimates of the year for the services of 214 the year. Subsequent Estimates presented to the House for the services of the same year are Supplementary Estimates, whether they are presented in a new session or in a new Parliament. When the ordinary Estimates for the year are presented in February they are dealt with by the House, and the grants are supposed to be sufficient for the services of the year; the Appropriation Bill is passed, and the whole business, financial and otherwise, is put an end to by a prorogation as completely as it is by a dissolution. But in a new session, where Supplementary Estimates are presented, there is no question that I leave the chair, and consequently no debate can arise; and the same rule must apply to the case put by the hon. Member.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESI am afraid that, after that answer, I shall be forced to vote against the resolution.
§ MR. DALZIELsaid he wished to move as an Amendment the omission of the words which provided that the Speaker should adjourn the House without question put. As the motion at present stood, every opportunity for private Members was taken away, and he thought there was absolutely no precedent in the history of Parliament for a House containing hundreds of new Members to be called together, and the Government thus taking upon itself the responsibility of saying that they should discuss one question and one question only. Hon. Members had just come back from their constituencies, having, no doubt, made many promises, and they ought, at least, to have an opportunity of raising cases of urgency on the motion for adjournment. But if this motion were carried in its present form, the result would be that, immediately Government business was disposed of the Speaker would leave the chair, and, no matter how urgent a local question might be, an hon. Member would not be allowed to ask a question in regard to it. As they were meeting at the present time solely in consequence of the absence of foresight and capacity of the Government, and entirely because time after time blunders had been made in the framing of the Estimates to provide for the cost of the war, he submitted that Ministers ought not to make that extraordinary claim upon the House. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to allow the motion 215 for adjournment to be put in the ordinary way, as there was not the slightest chance of the opportunity being unduly taken advantage of. It was conceivable, especially while military operations were going on, that serious questions might arise in the course of the day upon which both the House and the country would desire information. Of course, a Minister might, by leave of the House, make a statement, but then, if that were allowed, the Government would be breaking their own rule. As the right hon. Gentleman was always ready to make reasonable concessions, and as he believed this privilege would not be abused, he asked him to assent to this Amendment. They all recognised that in this session they were not to raise questions unassociated with the war. But he did want to secure that, if a Member had brought to his notice a matter of great importance to his constituency upon which he wished information, he should have an opportunity of putting the question at the rising of the House. In the interests and to safeguard the privileges of private Members he urged the right hon. Gentleman to grant this small concession.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)seconded the Amendment, and endorsed the appeal made by his hon. friend. He pointed out that the privilege had never been abused in the past—at any rate during the time he had been a Member of the House. All they wanted was that they should have on the adjournment an opportunity of raising any urgent question, and of asking Ministers questions in regard to it.
§
Amendment proposed—
In line 4, to leave out the words from the word 'precedence' to the word 'and' in line 5."—(Mr. Dalziel.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe resolution is strictly in accordance with numerous precedents set by both sides.
§ MR.DALZIELAt the end of sessions.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURWhat difference does that make to the argument of the hon. Member? I see no reason for differ- 216 entiating between the beginning and the end of a session when the House desires, as it undoubtedly does in this case, that the only business discussed shall be Government business. The interruption of the hon. Gentleman was not only irrelevant but incorrect in its imputation that this provision has only hitherto been adopted in resolutions brought forward towards the end of sessions. Although I do not deny that there may occasionally be some slight inconvenience because a Minister on the adjournment of the House is not able to answer some question, I think that to modify the resolution as suggested would open the door to very serious and grave inconveniences. Government business might have concluded some night at eight o'clock, and many Members have gone away in the belief that no other business would be taken. But some private Member might keep the whole machinery of the House at work in order to discuss some matter in which he was specially interested. I am, however, quite willing to consider whether, on the next occasion when such a motion is made, a degree of flexibility which will permit questions to be put cannot be introduced. I do not think that the method proposed by the hon. Gentleman would attain that end, except at the cost of great public inconvenience. It must be remembered that questions can be put at half-past three the next day, and that when any important information does arise, it is promptly sent to the press, so that hon. Members, as well as the public, see it the first thing the next morning.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)I think the right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the adoption of the Amendment would open the way for private Members' motions after Government business had been finished, and I am sure that that is not what the House would desire. The object of my hon. friends might be attained if in lieu of the words, "That the Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put," were inserted, "That Mr. Speaker do put the Question for the adjournment." If this were done, hon. Members would retain the right and privilege of addressing questions to members of the Government.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the Leader of the House had dropped a remark of the 217 greatest significance. He suggested that on the motion for adjournment there might be something in the nature of a surprise. He gathered from that that the right hon. Gentleman feared the action of the Colonial Secretary, for the only occasion on which, so far as he could remember, the privilege of making a statement on the motion for adjournment, was abused, was at a time when we were nearly getting into a war with France, because the Colonial Secretary suddenly came down in a most menacing manner, and announced that an unwarrantably aggressive attack had been made upon British officers and soldiers by French troops. Of course, if the Leader of the House was of opinion it was desirable that the Colonial Secretary should not have opportunities of repeating such conduct, that was a matter they must settle between themselves. He held there was a considerable difference between the beginning and the end of a session, and that while such a motion as this might not be warranted at the commencement, it might be reasonable in the month of July, when the House had had an opportunity for five or six months of threshing out questions. Still, as the right hon. Gentleman had given a sort of promise that ho would consider the point before a similar proposal was made on a future
§ occasion, it would be for his friends to consider whether the Amendment should be pressed.
§ MR. DALZIELWill the right hon. Gentleman accept the suggestion of the Member for Dundee? If so, I will withdraw the Amendment.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI am afraid that is hardly practicable. Supposing Government business came to an end early in the evening, we might go on discussing the adjournment until midnight.
§ MR. DALZIELThe discussion would have to be pertinent to the adjournment.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThere can be no question pertinent to an adjournment.
§ MR. DALZIELI believe it has been held by the Speaker that Members may only put questions of urgency on the motion for adjournment. It is, therefore, quite impossible to raise a variety of subjects, or to have an academic discussion.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided.—Ayes, 215; Noes,100. (Division List No. 2.)
221| AYES. | ||
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Chamberlain, J Austen(Worc'r) | Foster, Sir M. (Lond. Univ.) |
| Aird, John | Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Chapman, Edward | Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Galloway. Wm. Johnson |
| Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis | Coddington, Sir William | Garfit, William |
| Asquith,Rt.Hn. HerbertHenry | Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J. |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon John | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Gordon,Hn. J. E.(Elgin&Nairn) |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Colomb,Sir John Charles Ready | Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Gordon, Maj W (Tower Hamlets) |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Cranborne, Viscount | Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby- |
| Balfour,Rt.Hon. A. J.(Manch'r | Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon |
| Balfour.Rt Hn Gerald W(Leeds) | Dickson, Charles Scott | Goulding, Edward Alfred |
| Balfour, Maj. K.R. (Christch.) | Dimsdale, Sir Joseph C. | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) |
| Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) | Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Greene,SirEW(B'ryS Edm'nds) |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Douglas, Rt, Hon. A. Akers- | Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) |
| Beach,Rt. Hn. Sir M. H (Bristol) | Duke, Edward Henry | Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Groves, James Grimble |
| Bignold, A. | Dyke, Rt, Hon. Sir Wm. H. | Guthrie, Walter Murray |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas | Hain, Edward |
| Bowles,Capt.H.F. (Middlesex) | Ellis, John Edward | Haldane, Richard Burdon |
| Bowles, T.Gibson(King'sLynn) | Emmott, Alfred | Hambro, Charles Eric |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Faber, George Denison | Hamilton.Marqof (L'nd'nderry |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Fardell, Sir T. George | Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashfrd |
| Burt, Thomas | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd. | Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th) |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Fergusson, Rt. Hn.Sir J.(Man'r | Hay, Claude |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst. | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Fisher, William Hayes | Hayter, Sir Arthur D. |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon | Heath, James(Staffords.N.W.) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J (Birm.) | Flower, Ernest | Helder, Augustus |
| Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | Mitchell, William | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Hickman, Sir Alfred | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Sinclair, Capt. John(Forfarsh.) |
| Higginbottom, S. W. | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) |
| Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich) | More, Robert J. (Shropshire) | Smith,HC(N'rth'mb.Tyneside |
| Hobhouse,Henry(Somerset,E. | Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) | Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.) |
| Hogg, Lindsay | Morley,Rt.Hn.John(Montrose | Spear, John Ward |
| Hope J. F(Sheffield,Brightside) | Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. | Spencer.Rt.Hn.C.R (N'rth'nts) |
| Hornby, Sir William Henry | Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford) | Stanley,Hon Arthur Ormskirk |
| Horner, Frederic William | Mount, William Arthur | Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart |
| Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Stock, James Henry |
| Howard,Capt. J(Kent,Faversh | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) | Murray, Col.Wyndham (Bath) | Stroyan, John |
| Hozier,Hon.JamesHenryCecil | Nicol, Donald Ninian | Thomas, David A (Merthyr) |
| Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) | Thomas,F.Freeman-(Hastings. |
| Kennaway,Rt. Hon. SirJohn H. | Parker, Gilbert | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Kenyon, Hon. G. T.(Denbigh) | Parkes, Ebenezer | Tufnell, Col. Edward |
| Kitson, Sir James | Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington) | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Knowles, Lees | Peel, Hon. William Robert W. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Percy. Earl | Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H(Shef'd.) |
| Langley, Batty | Pilkington, Richard | Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) |
| Laurie, Lieut.-General | Pirie, Duncan V. | Walker, col. William Hall |
| Lawson, John Grant | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Lee,Lt-Col.A.H(Hants.F'ham | Plummer, Walter R. | Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. |
| Leese,SirJoseph F.(Accrington | Purvis. Robert | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Pym, C. Guy | Wason, John C. (Orkney) |
| Leveson-Gower,Frederick N.S. | Radcliffe, R. F. | Welby,Lt,-Col.A.C.E.(Ta'nt'n) |
| Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Randles, John S. | Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon- |
| Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Rankin, Sir James | Whiteley,H.(Ashton-under-L.) |
| Long, Col. Chas. W.(Evesham) | Reid, James (Greenock) | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Long,Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol,S. | Reid, Sir R. T. (Dumfries) | Williams,Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm) |
| Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Rentoul, James Alexander | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Lowe, Francis William | Ridley, M. W. (Stalybridge) | Wills, Sir Frederick |
| Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) | Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green) | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Lowther,Rt.HonJames(Kent) | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T. | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Macdona, John Cumming | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. | Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.) |
| MacIver, David (Liverpool) | Ropner, Colonel Robert | Wodehouse,Hn.Armine(Essex |
| Maclure, Sir John William | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W. | Wortley,Rt.Hon.C. B. Stuart- |
| M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Royds, Clement Molyneux | Wylie, Alexander |
| Majendie, James A. H. | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander | Young,Commander (Berks, E.) |
| Maxwell, W. J. (Dumfriesshire) | Seely, Charles Hilton(Lincoln) | |
| Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. | Seton-Karr, Henry | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Middlemore, J. Throgmorton | Sharpe, William Edward T. | Sir William Walrond and |
| Milward, Colonel Victor | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) | Mr. Anstruther. |
| NOES. | ||
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Furness, Sir Christopher | Mansfield. Horace Rendall |
| Allen,CharlesP(Gloue.,Stroud | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Grant, Corrie | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Gurdon. Sir William Brampton | Murray, Hn. A. W. (Midlothian) |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Hardie, J. K. (MerthyrTydvil) | Newnes,Sir George |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Harmsworth, R. Leicester | Nolan.ColJohn P (Galway, N.) |
| Bell, Richard | Harwood, George | Norman, Henry |
| Black, Alexander William | Healy. Timothy Michael | Norton, Capt. Cecil William. |
| Blake, Edward | Helme, Norval Watson | Nussey, Thomas Willans |
| Brigg, John | Hobhonse.C. E. H.(Bristol,E.) | Oldroyd, Mark |
| Broadhurst. Henry | Holland, William Henry | Pickard, Benjamin |
| Brown,George M. (Edinburgh) | Hope. John Deans | Rea, Russell |
| Caine, William Sproston | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) | Reckitt, Harold James |
| Caldwell, James | Joicey, Sir James | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Cameron, Robert | Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) | Rigg, Richard |
| Cavendish, V. C.W.(Derbysh.) | Kearle y. Hudson E. | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Kinloch, Sir John George S. | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Cremer, William Randal | Labouchere. Henry | Schwann, Charles E, |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Lambert. George | Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh); |
| Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh. | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Shipman, Dr. John |
| Dilke. Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Leigh, Sir Joseph (Stockport) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Leng, SirJohn | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Duncan, James H. | Lloyd-George, David | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Dunn, Sir William | Lough, Thomas | Strachey, Edward |
| Edwards, Frank | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Taylor, Theodore Cooke |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | M'Cann, James | Thomas, Alfrd(Glamorgan,E.) |
| Fenwick, Charles | M'Kenna, Reginald | Thomas, JA(Glamorg'n,Gower) |
| Fuller, J. M.F. | M'Laren, Charles Benjamin | Thomson, Frederick W. |
| Tomkinson, James | Whiteley, J. H. (Halifax) | Woodhouse, Sir J T(Hudd'rsf'd) |
| Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Warner, Thomas Conrtenay T. | Williams, A. O. (Merioneth) | |
| Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan) | Wilson,Chas.Henry(Hull,W.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Weir, James Galloway | Wilson,Fred.W.(Norfolk,Mid | Mr.Dalziel and Mr. Herbert Lewis. |
| White, Luke (York, E. R.) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) | |
| Whiteley,George (York, W. R.) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
Main Question put, and agreed to.
§ Ordered, That, during the Winter Sittings, no Motions for leave to bring in Bills be given except by a Minister of the Crown; that on every day Government Business do have precedence, and that at the conclusion thereof Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put; and that the provisions of Standing Order No. 56 be extended to all the days of the week.