CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS. (Hansard, 23 August 1883)

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, this question of considering the Lords' Amendments to important measures had in times past given rise to a considerable amount of discussion. Thirty years ago a Standing Order was made that such Amendments should be considered on a subsequent day to that upon which they were introduced. That was a salutary rule; and as he was given to understand that there were upwards of 60 Amendments to this Bill, a copy of which he had been unable to obtain, he submitted that it was unreasonable to attempt to consider them forthwith.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said, the Standing Order referred to did not prevent Amendments being considered when the House so ordered, as he asked should be done in this case. Although the Amendments were numerous, the vast majority of the alterations were by the draftsmen, and none of them raised any question of principle. He hoped, therefore, the House would consent to consider them at once.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, his object in desiring to defer the consideration 1771 of the Amendments was, that the vested interests of a considerable number of officers of the Court of Bankruptcy, which were safeguarded by the Act of 1869, were seriously imperilled by this Act. If the Government could assent to a small Amendment to protect the interests of the officers of the Court of Bankruptcy, he would be willing to withdraw his opposition.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said, the point was not touched by the Lords' Amendments.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he must protest against the system of no proper or due Notice being given of the Amendments introduced in Bills by the House of Lords. The present practice was most scandalous, and rendered it most difficult for hon. Members to do their duty. He trusted some prominent Member of the House would move a Standing Order which would provide that a distinct interval should elapse between the Lords' Amendments being brought up and their being considered.

§ MR. BOURKE
said, he hoped the Motion of the President of the Board of Trade would be adopted. At the same time, he trusted the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman in pressing the Amendment on the attention of the House without stating his reasons for so doing would not be established as a precedent.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
proposed to amend the Amendment by inserting the words "or by one of the official shorthand writers attached to the court" in order to secure accuracy in taking the depositions.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, the Amendment appeared to go beyond the scope of the Lords' Amendment, to which alone the attention of the House must be directed.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
pointed out that he merely wished to insert some words in the same place as the Lords had done to add to the protection of the debtor.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, it was not competent for him to put the hon. Member's Amendment from the Chair.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, that the Bill provided that no Registrar should practise as a solicitor, and the alteration made by the Lords was opposed to the policy of the Bill. He, therefore, would move that the House disagree with the Lords' Amendment.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
explained that the object of the Amendment was to prevent great hardships being inflicted upon existing Registrars, who had a right to practise in certain Courts.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
complained of the difficulty of knowing how and when to move to amend the alterations introduced by their Lordships. He wished to move the insertion of certain words with the object of saving the interests of some eight or ten officials of 1773 the Bankruptcy Court, who would be seriously affected by the Bill.

§ MR. SPEAKER,
having received the Amendment from the hon. Member, said it appeared to go beyond the scope of the Lords' Amendment, and raised the question of compensation. It certainly could not be put from the Chair.

§ MR. J. G. TALBOT
said, that the Bill had been materially altered in the other House, and they were obliged to deal with it in a very unsatisfactory way. The Bill was becoming law in a form which was almost unknown to the Members of that House. He did not doubt that the alterations made by the House of Lords were improvements; but Members of that House—as the Amendments had not been printed—had had no opportunity of considering their effect. Of course, if the Government were satisfied with the alterations which had been made, the House would be satisfied. But the whole responsibility of those Amendments rested with the Government alone. His hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland), and other Members who had devoted great care and labour on the Bill, were exercising great forbearance in not criticizing the Amendments in detail; and he hoped that the Government would acknowledge that forbearance, and prevent the recurrence of such hasty legislation.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said, he did not think that the hon. Gentleman could have been in his place when he explained that, generally speaking, the whole of these Amendments were mere drafting Amendments, or to carry out pledges given to that House in the course of the passage of the Bill through the Grand Committee or through the Report stage. It was not, therefore, correct to say that the House of Lords had materially altered the Bill, and that they were called upon to accept it on faith. If there had been any serious Amendments of principle, he quite agreed that it would be impossible to ask for the forbearance of the House in taking them without further Notice. There was nothing unusual in the proceedings on that Bill, and nothing had happened which did not generally happen at the end of a Session. He admitted that the practice pursued to-day was one which it would be undesirable to extend; but the proposal was made for the convenience of Members, 1774 and in order to avoid a prolongation of the Session.

§ MR. DIXON-HARTLAND
said, he could not agree with the President of the Board of Trade that the Amendments were immaterial. The change of a single word sometimes made all the difference in an Act of Parliament, and the House did not know what the effect of the Amendments would be. It was next to impossible to grasp the general bearing of the Amendments, without seeing them printed on the Paper, and having more time to consider them. The responsibility of those Amendments lay wholly with the Government.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he thought there ought to be time for the House to consider the question properly. The Amendments ought to have been placed in Members' hands properly paged and lined.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, he thought they were fairly entitled to say that the Amendments of the Lords were of such a nature as to require very serious consideration. Under the circumstances in which they were presented, it was absolutely impossible to draft any Amendment. He thought it was just as well that the country should understand the parody on legislation which they had lately witnessed.