§ EARL SPENCERMy Lords, I have given private notice to the noble Duke of a Question which I wish to ask him with regard to the Brussels Convention. It is, whether it is the intention of the Government to give this House an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the Sugar Bounties Convention before the same is ratified by the Crown. I do not propose tonight to state at length the reasons why I and other friends of mine are opposed to this Convention, 219 but I do contend that your Lordships' House has the same right to express an opinion on the Convention as the other House of Parliament. No doubt it may be said there is a treaty to be ratified, and that a Bill will have to be introduced which will reach this House, but I hold that your Lordships have an equal right with the other House to express its views before ratification. Otherwise your Lordships will be placed in an embarrassed and undignified position. No doubt this Convention has peculiarities about it, and the form in which the motion is being made here. At the same time, I do assert that on the general question, without pledging the House to any particular action with regard to the financial part, this House has an equal right with the other House to express its opinion.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE)My Lords, the answer to the Question of the noble Earl is that His Majesty's Government, as at present advised, do not propose to submit a resolution in this House similar to that which has been moved to-day in the House of Commons. The procedure which has been adopted in the other House has, perhaps, no exact precedent to recommend it, but I believe that the circumstances themselves are to a great extent also unprecedented. It was considered most desirable to show to the other Powers concerned that His Majesty's Government were in earnest in their intention to adopt such measures as might be necessary in order to carry into effect the Convention to which they had agreed. The most regular form in which this could have been done would have been to pass through Parliament the necessary measure for carrying out the Convention before the date of ratification—namely, 1st February next; but, owing to pressure of business in Parliament, this course was not found possible, and, therefore, it was decided to proceed by Resolution. But as the Bill which will eventually have to be passed through Parliament will deal mainly with financial matters, it was not considered necessary or desirable to submit a similar Resolution in this House. A Bill will, in any case, be necessary, 220 and, as the noble Earl has stated, it will be possible for your Lordships to discuss the provisions contained in the Bill. The noble Earl, however, as I understand, desires that this House should have some opportunity of expressing their opinion upon the Convention before its ratification. For the reason I have stated, His Majesty's Government do not propose to invite this House to give such an expression of opinion. But I must point out that the Convention itself, and the correspondence relating to it, are in the hands of noble Lords, and, if they desire to raise any discussion upon it, it is perfectly competent for them to take that course.
§ LORD TWEEDMOUTHMy Lords, I am afraid we cannot consider that the answer given by the noble Duke meets the necessities of the present position. It does seem to me an extraordinary thing that it should be a Ministry belonging to the Party which calls itself the Constitutional Party which thus refrains from bringing before the House of Lords for sanction an arrangement of the importance of the Brussels Convention. My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition has explained, I think very clearly, the great difficulty that this House will be in if it is invited to discuss this subject only on the Bill which is to be brought in at some future period. Then we shall be discussing the subject, so to speak, with our hands tied. The noble Duke has said that the object of bringing forward this Resolution in another place was to show to the other Powers that the Government were in earnest in their desire to see this Convention completed. It seems to me that we in this House have an equal right to be asked to express our opinion on the subject. I think the Government should, out of respect to this House, have invited your Lordships to agree to their proposal. I do not think that it is altogether consonant with the dignity of this House to ask that an important subject of this kind should be left in the hands of a private Member to initiate and to deal with. I, like my noble friend, do not intend to go into the merits of the question, but undoubtedly the Convention does raise most important points. It raises the 221 question whether bounties really are advantageous or whether they are not; it raises the whole question of the future position of this country in reference to its financial arrangements with regard to trade; and it raises the great constitutional question how far we are right in giving a Commission, largely composed of the representatives of foreign powers, the right to criticise, and even impose conditions on, our finance. It has been urged by the noble Duke that the matter is a financial one; but, while it is quite true that we in this House are constitutionally forbidden to amend a money Bill, we have a right to reject a money Bill, which shows, I think, that we have complete control over financial matters, at any rate to the extent of saying aye or no. I hope that the Government may yet reconsider their decision, and that from the Front Bench opposite some Motion will be moved inviting this House to agree with the proposals of His Majesty's Government.
§ * THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE)My Lords, I do not differ at all from what has been said by the noble Lord opposite as to the great importance of the Brussels Convention. It involves many important and far-reaching principles, and no subject would probably be more worthy of discussion in your Lordship's House. I do not, however, consider that we are open to the charge of having in any sense withdrawn the matter from the cognizance of your Lordships. So far as the question of form and procedure is concerned, the noble Duke behind me has, I think, made it clear that the Resolution now before the House of Commons is not one which your Lordships' House could conveniently be expected to discuss. Then arises the question, have we in any sense cheated the House of Lords out of an opportunity of fully debating and examining this question? The Report of the Brussels Convention was laid before Parliament in the month of March of this year. There has been nothing surreptitious about it. The facts had been fully disclosed, Papers had been laid before Parliament containing a full account of the instructions given to our delegates at Brussels, and, 222 so far as I am aware, on no single occasion has any noble Lord on the Bench opposite indicated an active interest in the matter. The noble Earl might upon any evening during the summer have brought down the President of the Cobden Club and asked us to discuss the economical questions raised by the kind was done. Even now it is perfectly open to any one of your Lordships to raise the question of the policy adopted by His Majesty's Government in going into conference at Brussels. I do not know whether that is likely to be done or not, but to this charge, at any rate, I do not think we are open, that we have in any sense shown a want of respect to your Lordships by not inviting you to consider our policy in regard to the question.