§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLI beg to ask the hon. Member for West Perthshire whether he has asked the Government to give him facilities for the discussion of a Motion, which has been placed on the Notice Paper in his name, calling attention to the proposed establishment of a new form of government in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, and to the action of His Majesty's Government and of the Colonial Executives in connection therewith; and, if he has asked for these facilities, what reply has been made to his request; and whether, in the interests of free discussion in the House of Commons, he will remove this notice from the Notice Paper.
§ MR. JOHN STROYAN (Perthshire, W.)I thank the hon. Member for having sent me private notice of his Question. The Answer to Question No. 1 is in the negative. The answer to Question No. 2 is therefore obvious. The answer to Question No. 3 is that the time has not arrived for a decision.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to a notice of Motion on the Notice, Paper, standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Perthshire, on the subject of the proposed Constitutions of the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, and, if so, will he give a day for its discussion; and, if not, whether he will request him to remove that Notice from the Paper.
On the same subject the following Question appeared—
§ DR. MACNAMARAI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the Notice of Motion, standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Perthshire, to 1340 call attention to the proposed establishment of a new form of government in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, and to the action of His Majesty's Government and of the Colonial Executives in connection therewith; and to move a Resolution; and whether he will undertake to give a day for the discussion of this Motion before the proposals for conferring local self-government upon the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies become operative.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI cannot make the request, nor is it necessary that I should do so. As early as Supply will permit I propose to put down the Vote of the Secretary for the Colonies.
§ MR. JOHN ELLISI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he proposes to take any steps to extricate the House from the position in which it has found itself during the last session or two of being prevented discussing a matter of general interest and urgent importance by the system which has grown up and developed of what are termed blocking Notices.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI have explained the views of the Government more than once on this subject. I am sorry to say I have not fulfilled an undertaking which I made at the end of last session that I would put down on the Paper a proposed Amendment to the Standing Orders embodying the views which I have expressed to the House. My view is that it is impossible to deal with the question of blocking Notices, as they are called, without considering many other questions, including the use made of powers to adjourn the House. But I feel that it is a hardship on such occasions as the adjournment for the holidays that a blocking Notice should prevent the discussion of any question which the House desires to deal with. I shall hasten to put down an Amendment to the Standing Orders carrying out that view.
§ MR. JOHN ELLISMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will be good enough to frame his Motion in such a way that we can discuss the whole matter raised in my Question?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURNo, Sir, I think that "would defeat the very end I have in view. Part of my object is to give hon. Gentlemen, if they desire it, an opportunity, on the adjournment for the Easter or Whitsuntide recess, of discussing questions which they might otherwise be debarred from touching. If that is accepted sub silentio they will have those opportunities; but if I provoke discussion by putting down such a Resolution as the hon. Gentleman desires, it is evident that we should not have an opportunity to discuss that until August, and in August we might have other things more pressing.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESDo I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will not deal in his Motion with the abuse complained of in regard to important Motions for adjournment?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not say these questions are not of importance. On the contrary, they are of great importance, but evidently they will take up a great deal of the time of the House. They are most difficult and delicate matters. All I should aspire to would be the relatively humble function of trying to frame an Amendment of our Standing Orders which should be uncontroversial in its character.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANIn the meantime will the Government allow the House to remain in the same condition, tied and bound by this regulation, as it was last year? Will they do nothing to relieve the House from the scandal of being prevented by the action of a single Member, with or without the complicity of the Government, from having any discussion upon urgent questions?
SIR GEORGE HARTLEY (Islington, N.)Was it not so under the last Government?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURNo doubt the right hon. Gentleman's sense of the wrongs under which he suffers has become more acute since he sat on this bench. I do propose to do something to mitigate the evils which the right hon. Gentleman complains of because I pro- 1342 pose to put on the Paper a limited Amendment, the purport of which I have already described. If the right hon. Gentleman will let me get that through without discussion he will have done something practical towards realising his idea.
§ MR. JOHN ELLISWhen will the Motion be put down?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThis week, certainly.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the end of last session he did his best to limit discussion on the adjournment to half a day?
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! That is debating the matter.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked Mr. Speaker whether the practice precluding the raising of discussion on a Motion for Adjournment on any matter on which a notice of Motion had been given was founded, not on any Resolution of the House of Commons or on any Standing Order, but on the rulings of successive Speakers.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member has read me the result of his studies, and he asks me whether I agree or disagree with him. I am not called upon to answer Questions of that sort.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLreplied that he would bring the question up as a matter of privilege, and, therefore, moved that the notice of Motion placed on the Order Book by the hon. Member for West Perthshire, with reference to the proposed Constitution of the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies constituted a breach of the privileges of the House, inasmuch as it was set down with a view to avoiding discussion of the question, and was an abuse and perversion of a rule of Parliamentary practice established nor for the obstruction of discussion, but for giving it facilities, and that the said Notice be removed from the Order Book.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member has had an opportunity of reading his Motion, which is probably what he wanted. There is no question of privilege at all.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLWill you hear me one minute?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe Resolution raises no question of privilege, and as it does not do so, the hon. Member is not in order in moving it.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLThe hon. Member said he put the notice down because this was not the time for discussing it.
§ MR. STROYANI said nothing of the kind.