§ The following Notices of Motion appeared on the Order Paper:—
§ Viscount Wolmer.—Bill to forbid the payment of any salary out of the public funds to any Member of this House.
§ Mr. Rupert Gwynne.—(No. 2)—Bill to regulate the payment of salaries to Members of this House and to provide that such salaries shall not exceed £400 a year.
1362§ Mr. Amery.—(No. 3)—Bill to make provision for the terms and conditions on which any salary voted for the payment of Members of this House shall be paid.
§ Mr. Oliver Locker-Lampson.—(No. 4) —Bill to make provision that any salary hereafter voted for the payment of Members of this House shall be at the rate of £400 a year to every Member of this House, excluding any Member who is for the time being in receipt of a salary as an officer of the House, or as a Minister, or as an officer of His Majesty's Household.
§ There was also on the Notice Paper the following Notice of Motion by the Chancellor of the Exchequer:—
"That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made for the payment of a salary at the rate of £400 a year to every Member of this House, excluding any Member who is for the time being in receipt of a salary as an officer of the House, or as a Minister, or as an officer of His Majesty's Household."
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI desire you, Mr. Speaker, to be good enough to give us your ruling with reference to the business down on the Notice Paper for to-day. The question which I wish to submit to you is whether the Motion standing in the name of my Noble Friend the Member for the Newton Division (Viscount Wolmer), and the other Motions which follow would, if persisted in, prevent the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Payment of Members being made?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThese four notices seem to me to be designed for that purpose, and if they were persisted in they would be successful.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINMay I, with the leave of the House, make an appeal to my hon. Friends not to persist with their Motions, on the understanding that when we come to discuss the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Motion, the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lee) will be discussed. I think it would cause great inconvenience to many of us if the discussion did not take place.
§ Viscount WOLMERIn answer to my right hon. Friend I should like to explain that the notices of Motion for the presentation of Bills were handed in by myself and others as a protest against the non- 1363 fulfilment of a pledge which the Government gave in 1907 that they would put a stop to the practice of blocking Motions— a practice from which the Opposition sometimes benefit as well as the Government—and, further, as a protest against the method which the Government have selected in introducing so important an innovation into our Constitution as the payment of Members—a method whereby —as was explained by you, Sir, yesterday —only one or two of the important Amendments on the Paper can be discussed. As neither the hon. Member for Fareham nor I have any intention of interfering with the wishes of the House—and I believe my hon. Friends take the same view—I should be quite willing to withdraw my notice of this Motion, but I should like to say that it is intended that a Motion should be moved from this side of the House on Monday in order to enable us to protest against the unconstitutional method by which the Government propose to effect so grave an innovation in our political institutions. I understand that the Government will raise no objection to that course.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)If I may say so, I think it is very desirable that the Debate should be a Debate with Mr. Speaker in the Chair, and not a Debate in Committee, so that we will be able to raise the whole principle of the question of the payment of Members and not merely the amount. I should be willing, on behalf of the Government, to agree to anything which will facilitate that process. I understand that the Noble Lord has agreed to withdraw his notice of Motion, I will not say on the understanding, but in the belief that so far as they are concerned the Government will not object to any Motion which will enable a short discussion to take place on Monday—a very short discussion. I think this is rather important, because after all when we get into Committee of Supply, if the whole time is to be taken up by discussing a topic of this kind, hon. Members who desire to call attention to other matters would be unable to do so. On that under-sanding, I accept the suggestion that we should discuss the principle of the proposal to-day.
§ 4.0 P.M.
§ LORD HUGH CECILI have given notice of a Motion to report Progress, and I do not know whether that Motion would be out of order. I suppose by general con- 1364 sent a Motion for reduction can be allowed a rather wider range of discussion than is normally the case, and the procedure of the Government might be taken on that Motion. I do not anticipate that the discussion can be a long one, because from the nature of the case it can be stated very shortly. It might last, perhaps, to about six or half-past six o'clock, and there would be no difficulty in getting a division. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that these understandings are not in the hands of any of us to carry out at the moment, but, so far as I can judge, the discussion need not be at all a long one, and if the Government see no objection to the course suggested it would be a convenient way of dealing with the matter.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI have never seen any of these Parliamentary understandings fail, and I shall be very pleased, on behalf of the Government, to accept the suggestion of the Noble Lords below the Gangway. I understand from my right hon. Friend who has had the little negotiation in hand as well as many others, that a Motion of the kind would be in order, and that it would be in order on that Motion to raise the very question to which the Noble Lord referred.
§ Viscount WOLMERIn those circumstances I shall not move my Motion.