HC Deb 18 July 1905 vol 149 cc1077-80
*SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER (Wiltshire, Chippenham)

I beg to ask whether, in view of the withdrawal of the Redistribution Resolutions, the Prime Minister intends to defer the appointment of the Boundary Commission until the Bill is introduced and the principle accepted by the House of Commons next session.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

If my hon. friend's Question means, as I suppose it does, whether I hall defer the investigation by a Committee or Commission, as the case may be, until we meet again next session, my Answer must be quite distinctly in the negative.

SIR. J. DICKSON-PONDER

Will the instruction the right hon. Gentleman will give to the Boundary Commission be baaed on the proposals which have been withdrawn from the House.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not think I can give an Answer to the hon. Gentleman, and I certainly should not bedisposed to limit the labours of the Committee or Commission if I thought that by extending their scope information useful to the House when we introduce the Bill would be obtained.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

Is there any precedent for a Boundary Commission, or anything in the nature of a Boundary Commission, being appointed except under the authority of Parliament, except in a case where there is an agreement in the House of Commons on the subject?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am not aware, though I may be wrong, of any precedent to the contrary. I do not I remember any case where the contrary course, of having a Parliamentary mandate to appoint a, Commission, was followed.

SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN

; Commissioners are named in the Bill.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman quite apprehends my meaning. In the case, for example, of the first Reform Bill of 1831, Lord Russell, or the Government of the day, did put the names of the Commissioners in that Bill, and so far asked for Parliamentary powers. But the Bill was thrown out in the Lords, and Lord Russell, I think very properly, proceeded to appoint the Commissioners without the authority of Parliament.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

He had the authority of the House of Commons.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

They asked the authority of Parliament, but they did nut get it. As far as I can remember, Mr. Gladstone's investigations in 1866, under Lord Russell's Government, were carried on without Parliamentary authority. As far as I remember, in 1867 Mr. Diraeli brought in Resolutions which did ask for House of Commons' authority, but he withdrew his Resolutions, and I believe that such investigations as he desired to carry out were carried out without the mandate of Parliament. In 1884 Mr. Gladstone, before the concordat—though I do not see what constitutional effect a concordat has or could have—appointed what he called a Committee to look into these questions of Redistribution. There was then a concordat, and then Parliament was summoned together, and then he announced to Parliaments introducing his Redistribution Act of 1884, which ultimately became law, that the Commission had been some time at work and had made, if I remember aright, important advances in their labours.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)

The statement of the right hon. Gentleman is hardly correct. The Commission was not actually appointed until after the agreement had been come to between the two Parties.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

No, Sir. The Commission was not appointed, but the Committee was. If my memory serves me right, the Committee consisted of three members, to whom two were added, and they formed the Commission.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

What we are anxious to get at is this. Of course we should all agree that the right hon. Gentleman may make any inquiry or investigation he likes if he is proposing this course merely for the purpose of obtaining a tittle more information upon this subject than he appears at present to enjoy. But such a Committee is a different thing from as authoritative body giving an authoritative Report which is to be used as a weapon—if I may employ the phrase— to compel the House of Commons to agree to a certain course in the session when the Bill is introduced.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

There is no such thing as an authoritative weapon; nor is this House to be intimidated, I take it, by the Report of any Commission, however constituted or by whom appointed. When a Bill is introduced dealing with Redistribution, it would be very desirable that the House should have all the information at the disposal of the Government; but that the House would be coerced by that information to carry oat the recommendations of the Commission is wholly inconsistent with our tradition; and is a chimerical fear which no man need entertain.

SIR H. CAMPBBLL-BANNERMAN

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is his intention that the Bill of next session should be substantially on the same lines as the Resolution with which we have just parted, and whether the limit of 18,500 is to be maintained?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

That will, of course, in part depend upon the information we derive between this and the introduction of the Bill next session.

MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire,) South Molton

Which of the precedents the Prime Minister has quoted does he intend to follow?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

One of the precedents I propose to follow is Mr. Gladstone's precedent, in which he said nothing whatever to the House of Commons on the subject.

MR. DALZIEL

Why with these precedents before him did the right hon. Gentleman bring forward the Redistribution Resolution at all?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It would have been extremely inconvenient both to the House and the country if the general lines on which the Government based their policy had not been made public and the subject of general criticism.

SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN

Then these, mutatis mutandis, are generally the lines upon which the right hon. Gentleman will proceed?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am not quite sure that I know what mutatis mutandis means in this connection. I certainly propose that any Committee which we may appoint shall start with a general knowledge of the views by which the Government have reached the proposals which they have submitted to the House. Whether those views will suffer any change in the course of the investigation by the Committee is a thing which it is impossible to foresee at the present moment.

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

Is the House to understand that the Committee or the Commission which the Government propose to appoint is to be appointed without the instructions to them being made public.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Mr. Gladstone made no public announcement. I do not know that I am bound to follow Mr. Gladstone's precedent, but there is a great deal to be said for it.