HC Deb 18 February 1901 vol 89 cc322-5
MR. DILLON

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Ministers of the Allied Powers in Peking are pressing that four high officials of the Chinese Government should be ordered to commit suicide.

* VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

No. The action of the Powers is confined to urging upon the Chinese Government the imposition of the death penalty in the case of certain officials chiefly responsible for the recent outrages.

MR. DILLON

Have the Ministers intimated to the Chinese Government that they will accept suicide as a substitute for the death penalty?

[No answer was given.]

MR. DILLON

Will the noble Lord not deign to give me an answer?

* VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, my right hon. friend the Leader of the House has already stated that there is an understanding that the Under Secretary shall not answer supplementary questions.

MR. DILLON

I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege. I wish to ask whether it is not a breach of the privileges of this House for the Leader of the House to forbid a Minister to reply to the question of an hon. Member?

* MR. SPEAKER

It is a matter for the Minister who is asked the question to answer it or decline to answer it on public grounds, as he thinks fit. What those public grounds are, whether they are sufficient or not, must be a question for him and the other members of the Ministry.

MR. DILLON

That, Sir, is not the question I desire to put to you, but whether it is not a matter for the discretion of the Minister himself—whether it is in accordance with the practices and privileges of this House for any one Minister to forbid another Minister to answer the question of an hon. Member of the House instead of leaving it to the discretion of the Minister himself.

* MR. SPEAKER

That is not a matter for me to decide. I cannot say that it is a breach of the privileges of the House. If the House chooses to pass a resolution condemning such a practice, that is a matter for the House. If the head of a Department or the Leader of the House says that it is not in the public interest that such a course should be taken it is not a matter that the Speaker can deal with. It is a matter for the House.

MR. DILLON

May I ask whether I shall be at liberty to raise a question of privilege now or immediately after questions?

* MR. SPEAKER

It is not a question of privilege.

MR. COGHILL (Stoke-on-Trent)

May I ask whether it has not been the custom in this House for a Minister to answer a question fully when it has been properly brought before him?

* MR. SPEAKER

Certainly not, if the Minister says he declines on grounds which are always assumed to be, unless the contrary is stated, the grounds of public convenience.

SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

May I ask whether we are to understand from your ruling just given that in each case of a question put to a Minister, the Minister, if he declines to answer, is bound to state that he declines to answer that specific question on grounds of public policy?

* MR. SPEAKER

I certainly should not feel myself bound to call on him to state that in answer to each particular question, if a general statement had been already made.

MR. DILLON

Arising out of your last answer, Mr. Speaker, what I complained of was that the Minister on this occasion did not refuse to answer me on any public grounds. He refused to answer me on the specific ground that the First Lord of the Treasuary had laid it down as a principle that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs was not to reply to supplementary questions. I desire, with your permission, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether that dictum would apply to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if we were blessed with such an institution as that in this House?

* MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! This matter cannot be carried on by debate in form of question and answer across the floor of the House. If the hon. Member has reason to complain of the action of the Government he must take the usual course.

MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN

May I ask if this trouble has not arisen because the Government is too largely dominated by one family?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)

I would ask you whether until very recently—until, I think, in the case of the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary for War—when an intimation was made that a change should be made in the practice of this House, it has not always been understood that when a great Department of the State like the Department for Foreign Affairs is not represented in this House by the principal and head of that Department, but by a subordinate member of that Department, that subordinate member, who is the only representative in this House of that Department, is bound to act in the same mannner and answer questions in the same manner as if he were the principal and head of that Department, and that that is the only security for this House having that information to which it would be entitled if the head of that Department were here.

* MR. SPEAKER

I must respectfully decline to be drawn into an argument upon a matter between the House and the Government. I think I should be doing wrong if I were to express opinions about the conduct of the Government except in matters which strictly arise out of questions of order and privilege.