LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD, IRELAND. (Hansard, 10 March 1920)

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by £100.
I move this reduction in order to draw attention to the fact that the Committee 1470 which considered the allocation of time on the Supplementary Estimates came to a bargain that they should closure discussion at eleven o'clock, but they emphasised the fact that they retained the right to vote on each item of the Supplementary Estimates as they come up. That was particularly stated by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), who, unfortunately, is not here to-night. I think that the other members of the Committee were particularly emphatic on retaining that right. On the original arrangement we made for allocating 1471 time we had arranged that the discussion on the Committee stage of the Supplementary Estimates should close at 7.15, so as to give a whole hour for Divisions before the next business began at 8 o'clock. Therefore, it is obvious that it was perfectly understood that we were going not only to maintain our nominal right, but to exercise the right of voting against the Estimates.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Member is doing what he would not intentionally do. He is challenging the action of the Chair under cover of another Motion.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I do not desire in the least to challenge the action of the Chair What I do want to point out is that the bargain, if it is to be kept on one side, must be kept on the other as well. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members came to a bargain—which I think was a very wise one—to end discussion at a certain hour. They reserved the right to challenge a Division, not, of course, to challenge the right of the Chair to prevent Divisions being taken. I understand from the Leader of the House that he thinks we broke the bargain by challenging this Division.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House)
indicated assent.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
That is not so. It was specifically stated by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London, that we had not only the right, but that if we exercised the right by voting against this expenditure of money we were not breaking the bargain.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
I think we are in a very peculiar position, because, since the Eleven O'clock Rule was suspended, I presumed that it would not be in order, at the expense of breaking the bargain, to make such a speech as my hon. and gallant Friend has just made. I am also breaking the bargain in replying, but I think the Committee will agree with me that it would be a very unfortunate thing if, for any technical reason of any kind, some strong disagreement and outburst of feeling in the Committee should occur in regard to the Standing Order. Personally, I would far rather go through the inconvenience of voting on every Vote than of having 1472 that. May I say that I quite assume, though the letter of the bargain is not kept, in my opinion, if Divisions are taken when there is no strong objection to the individual Vote, but merely because it is a Vote, in my view, that is also against the spirit of the bargain. I understand that the object of my right hon. Friend, the Member of the City of London, who, if he were here, could explain his own method, was not that there should be a vote on the whole 50 Votes then on the Paper, but that there should be an opportunity of challenging any individual Vote in regard to which Members felt strongly. That, certainly, was my understanding, but I do think it would be a great pity that there should be any feeling at all on this, the first occasion on which we are trying to carry out by agreement what has hitherto been carried out by coercion, more or less. I am quite certain that the Committee as a whole, and, I believe, the hon. Gentlemen opposite, will recognise the spirit, as well as the letter, of this, and try to meet the sense of the Committee in the further Divisions.

§ Mr. BRACE
I do not know whether I am in Order in saying that we much appreciate your courage, Mr. Whitley, in meeting us in the way you have. But I am sure that I am speaking the desire of my colleagues when I say that we have no wish at all to place any inconvenience upon the Committee in connection with these Votes. With regard to the Votes that are unimportant, I would ask my colleagues to agree to allow them to go without a Division, but if they are important Votes involving large sums of money, I feel that we must have an opportunity of placing upon record our opposition by a vote, because we cannot place on record our opposition by a speech.

§ Mr. MacVEAGH
That is a very important matter. It is very easy for hon. Members, who have had no Parliamentary experience, and who are comparatively new to Parliamentary procedure, to come in and interrupt the proceedings, to shout and to get angry at being kept out of bed. When they have been a little longer in the House of Commons—if many of them do remain long—they will understand the enormous constitutional importance of the question which has aroused all the heat to-night That question is 1473 whether money is not only to be voted without discussion, but that Divisions can be excused when the Question is put. It is so important that I think we are entitled, before any arrangement is made with the Leader of the House, to ask him for a clear statement of how he stands upon this question. Does he intend to take advantage of the ruling given to-night as a precedent?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I must protest against that. The Chairman is not in the least under the, authority or influence of the Leader of the House. He is appointed to this Chair by this House itself. He is the servant of the House.

§ Mr. MacVEAGH
I had no intention whatever, Mr. Whitley, of suggesting anything else. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, Oh!"] I think hon. Members might be mannerly at least. You, Mr. Whitley, know perfectly well that there was no intention upon my part even to suggest that you were acting in obedience to the wishes of the Leader of the House. I am certain you were not, and no such suggestion ever entered my head or fell from my lips. But this is a most important precedent. It is creating a precedent to-night. It is something that has never happened before in the whole history of the British Parliament, and we ought to know from the Leader of the House to-night that it is not going to happen again so far as he is concerned, and that he will take care that the Standing Order conferring such discretion upon the Chairman of Committees is amended.

HON. MEMBERS
No, no!

§ The CHAIRMAN
That cannot be argued in this way upon the Vote.

§ Mr. MacVEAGH
I am only suggesting this, Mr. Whitley, with the object of restoring harmony. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"] All right; go on with the fighting, if you like. I am quite ready to fight it out. I am just as well prepared to sit up all night as the hon. Gentlemen who interrupted. I therefore would like this point made perfectly clear. Where does the Leader of the House stand in this? I think that we ought to have a statement from him. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I repeat that we ought to have a statement from the Leader of the House as to the view he takes of the constitutional principles involved. If he will tell the Committee 1474 where he stands and where the Government stand on a question such as this, he will do a great deal to case the situation to-night. We are entitled to have an understanding on this.

§ Mr. HOGGE
I do not complain of the ruling of the Chair, whether that ruling is for us or against us. Anybody who has served in this House for a considerable time takes the luck, and regards it as part of the game which we say is sometimes played here. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not a game."] I have heard some hon. Members say exactly the same thing as I have said. We are not voting on the merits, but we are voting as a protest against money being put through in so short a time. The question arises whether we are breaking faith. If hon. Members will look in the OFFICIAL REPORT at the report presented by the Junior Member for the City of London they will see that one thing that was reserved was the right that each Vote should be put separately at Eleven o'clock in order that if there were any point in connection with that Vote it could be discussed, assuming the Rule did not stand. We know that after eleven o'clock we cannot speak either on the merits or the demerits of the Vote, but we can record a protest. It is very difficult, as my right hon. Friend will agree, at once, with sixty Votes to make a selection and say you are going to vote for certain Votes. That is very mechanical. I do not think we are breaking faith in doing what we have done. I do not think we want to continue it or unduly prolong it. We have no desire to do that as long as we have established the fact that it is an unwise thing for any Government to curtail, if they can possibly avoid it, the fullest opportunity for discussing these Votes. That is the general point, and if my right hon. Friend considers, I think he will agree that we have not broken faith, but that we have tried to preserve the principle to put each Vote separately.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
"Put!"

§ Mr. HOGGE
If we have preserved that right for the House of Commons, it is worth while doing it, even if it has taken all this time.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
There is no doubt that in speaking now, as in the case of others who have spoken, I am breaking 1475 the bargain. But I quite agree that it is worth while doing that if we are preserving the spirit of the agreement, and if the result is to have a more harmonious feeling than would have been the case if we had gone the other way. As regards what was said by the hon. Member, it would really be almost impertinent for me to express any view of the new use that is made of the Standing Order. He asked me to express my opinion of the way in which the Standing Order has been administered. Obviously it is not the occasion on which I would be justified, from the point of Order, in saying it, though I should have great hesitation in saying it because I think praise of the Chair is almost as bad as the other thing. But, in my opinion, I agree with my right hon. Friend opposite. Your, Sir, have shown the wisdom and discretion which we are accustomed from you in not pressing the view which you took with regard to the Standing Order. I feel that strongly, and I am sure the whole House feels and would be glad to show to you that we appreciate the way in which you have acted by our further action to-night. I am sorry if I am thought to have accused any hon. Members of a breach of faith. I did not intend that, but I do say that I put a different interpretation on what was intended My view was that the desire was to reserve the right to have a Division on every Vote, but without the intention of exercising it. Now the hon. Member has made his protest against the wicked Government to which we are accustomed, and I am very glad to receive the assurance from him—and I hope it will be adopted by the other hon. Members—I was going to say "his followers," but that would be wrong. But I hope that it will be agreed by those who are acting with him to-night that the full effect of the protest has been achieved and that we can now, in the most amicable spirit, end the Debate.

§ Mr. DEVLIN
As one who is not a follower of the right hon. Gentleman—the only time I follow him is when the Government think he is wrong—I desire to say that to me the most vital question that arises in connection with this discussion is this. If there is a call for a Division and you refuse to allow that Division, and you call upon hon. Members to stand up, I want to know will 1476 it be recorded in the official records of the House in what way those hon. Members have voted, for and against? I think that is the really important matter to the Members themselves. It is vital to the Members themselves and to their Constituencies, because, if the Chairman of Committees or Mr. Speaker, in the exercise of his discretion, decides that no Division shall be taken, that Members of the House should have the right that it should be stated in the records of the House how they have voted upon a financial question. That is the more important because this is a most extraordinary procedure by which millions of money is being voted without discussion, and not only being voted without discussion, but being voted in accordance with the decision that you have given without Members having the right to go into the Lobby one way or another. I do not know anything about these bargains made by the hon. Gentleman, who does not lead me, or the right hon. Gentleman who leads the hon. Gentleman behind him.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
It was a very delicate operation, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that although the number of his party is small I should not have consented to it if I had not secured the concurrence of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), who, I thought, spoke for his party.

§ Mr. DEVLIN
I join with the right hon. Gentleman in saying that when we get into a controversy with the Chair, and especially with you, Mr. Whitley, it is not because we have not the highest respect for your impartiality and courtesy. But this is a matter beyond the question of impartiality and courtesy. It is a question of the fundamental right of the men elected to this House to discharge their duties to their constituents. While I am not dissenting from the arrangement in the slightest, I understand that those who made that agreement are not agreed as to what the agreement actually was. According to the hon. Gentleman who sits on the Front Opposition Bench, whose constituency I forget—I would describe him as the hon. Gentleman who leads other hon. Gentlemen—even he and the right hon. Gentleman are agreed that we ought to be allowed to take a vote, and to have a 1477 Division called on all these votes. I would like, Mr. Whitley, to have your decision on that point.

§ Mr. MacVEAGH
Before you decide, Sir, might I ask for a clear understanding on another point? I think you quite understand that it is not from any desire to go back on the question of your ruling in any way, but we have not heard the Leader of the House. I would like to know whether the principle that this House, on money Votes—I am not talking about ordinary Divisions—whether the Leader of the House accepts on behalf of the Government the principle that any minority, however small, should have the right to challenge a Division?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think I must make it clear that what the Standing Order does is to establish an alternative form of Division. The question is put; two minutes are left, and according to the Standing Order an alternative form of Division is provided for there. I was asked about the recording of the names. That was in the Standing Order as it stood up to a, year ago; but these words were deliberately—by the Act of the House—removed from the Standing Order. That is how the matter stands.

§ Mr. HINDS
I think I was the second Member who was appointed on this Committee. It was distinctly understood on this Committee that any Member had the right to challenge, any Vote that was put down and that every group of Members had the right to vote against the Vote.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Does the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme desire to press his Amendment?

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
No, Sir.