HC Deb 05 June 1883 vol 279 cc1749-56
COLONEL KING-HARMAN

wished to put a Question to the Speaker upon a point of Order. On Wednesday last there was a Bill upon the Order Book of the House, called the Sites and Places for Public Worship (Ireland) Bill. That Bill was not proceeded with, and as the Clerk at the Table stated that he had received no instructions with regard to it the Order was dropped. In the list of Public Bills issued on the following Monday, the Bill appeared as a dropped Order. But early that (Tuesday) morning, about 1 o'clock, or thereabouts, he was informed that an application was made to place the Bill upon the Order Book again, and permission was given; the consequence being that the Bill appeared on the Order Books of the day for this evening. What he wished to call particular attention to was the fact that Notice of opposition had previously been given to the measure, so as to prevent its being brought on after half-past 12; but it now appeared upon the Paper without that Notice of opposition, because no opportunity had been afforded to Members who objected to the Bill to place their Notice of opposition upon the Paper again. He wished to ask the Speaker if the Bill could be taken after half-past 12, he (Colonel King-Harman) having now given a distinct Notice of opposition to it?

MR. WARTON

said, that, before the Speaker answered the Question, he wished to say that he had also opposed the Bill. He had carefully looked through the list of Bills issued on Monday, and he found that this appeared as a dropped Order; and, therefore, he had not renewed his Notice of opposition to it. But if this sort of practice were to be allowed to go on, it would be in the power of any hon. Member to profess to drop a Bill, and then, by some private Notice unknown to the House, to revive it and place it upon the Paper again.

MR. SPEAKER

This Bill was appointed for to-day in the ordinary way, by a Question put from the Chair; and the proceeding is quite regular. The point raised by the hon. and gallant Member is, no doubt, one of great importance. At the same time, I am bound to interpret the Rules strictly, and in accordance with their literal meaning; and, having regard to the Standing Order, I am bound to say that this Bill is no longer blocked, and as it is no longer blocked, it may be brought on after half-past 12 o'clock to-night.

MR. GIBSON

said, the matter was one of considerable importance. He understood that under the old Rules, if a Bill were dropped, and were afterwards revived, the block was revived with it. [Cries of"No!"] He had asked the question, and made an inquiry; and he was given to understand that the block lasted until it was withdrawn by the Member who put it down. The block, unless it was renewed, simply died; and in the case of a blocked Order there was nothing to prevent a practical evasion of the Rules of the House. A Member might drop his Bill, and then put it down again without a block; and although it might have been blocked, not by one Member, but by half-a-dozen, it could be brought forward without any Notice of opposition to it—a palpable evasion of the instructions of the House. The consequence of this might be that a Member, seeing that objection was entertained to his Bill, might quietly allow it to become a dropped Order until the end of July or the beginning of August, when every Member who took an interest in opposing it had left the House. He would then be able to revive the Bill, and get it run through without opposition. Surely the House ought to have some power of guarding itself against what would be a great violation of the decencies of legislation. And if, through some oversight, a Bill was now placed in this position, he ventured to ask the Speaker if it would not be more in accordance with the convenience of the House, as well as with the proprieties of legislation, that if it were desired to revive an Order, after it had once been dropped, that course should be taken with distinct and open Notice to the House, so that there should be abundant and reasonable Notice given to the House in order to prevent what might be—ho would not say a trick— but what might be used in an extreme case as a trick, and what might often cause surprise.

MR. RAIKES

said, that, before the Speaker answered the Question, he wished to put a further Question. The Standing Order made on the 18th February, 1879, as amended on the 9th of May, and 17th and 20th of November, 1882, was as follows:— That, except for a Money Bill, no Order of the Day or Notice of Motion be taken after half-past Twelve of the clock at night; with respect to which Order or Notice of Motion a Notice of Opposition, or Amendment, shall have been printed on the Notice Paper; or, if such Notice of Motion shall only have been given, the next previous day of sitting, and objection shall be taken when such Notice is called. He understood that this, being an Order of the Day, did not fall within the express terms of this Standing Order; but he would venture to ask the Speaker whether, having regard to the evident intention of the House, in making express provision for Notices of Motion only to be taken, of which such Notice of Motion should have been given the next previous day, his hon. and gallant Friend would not be in Order in taking objection to the Order of the Day being proceeded with, and asking the Speaker to rule upon it?

MR. SPEAKER

I cannot say that the hon. and gallant Member would be in Order, because the Standing Order applies solely to Notices of Motion. It does not apply to Orders of the Day; and therefore I should not consider that the Bill, being an Order of the Day, comes within the operation of the Half-past 12 o'clock Rule. I do not know how this inconvenience can be remedied, unless, when the Order of the Day is called on, it is proposed that such Order of the Day be postponed. The House knows that an Order of the Day can be moved by any Member of the House; and an Order becomes dropped when no Member makes a Motion thereon.

MR. GIBSON

asked if it was possible to arrange that Notice should be given of the intention of an hon. Member to revive a dropped Order, by such Member going to the Table and giving the Notice just before the Motion that the House should adjourn? In that way a dropped Order would be revived in a formal manner. He would ask, with due deference, whether it would not be within the competence of the Speaker to require that some more reasonable Notice should be given of even a day?

MR. COURTNEY

wished to remind the House that in the last Parliament a similar question arose in regard to the application of the Twelve o'clock Rule. It arose in the course of a Bill promoted by his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella). The Bill had become a dropped Order, together with a Notice of opposition, which had been given by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell). It was, however, revived without the Notice of opposition. When the Bill came on, the Speaker commented upon the course which had been taken; and on the strength of his observations, on an appeal being made to his right hon. Friend, he did not press the Bill that night. That showed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) was wrong in supposing that there had been any change in the mode of procedure, or any modification of the Rule. It was quite evident that when the Bill was revived the block was not revived with it.

MR. SPEAKER

I should be quite ready to comply with the instructions of the House; but, at the same time, I should not venture to insist upon Notice being given of the revival of a dropped Order, without receiving instruction to that effect from the House.

MR. WARTON

said, he had no wish to dispute any question which arose out of the Speaker's ruling; but he would ask, for the information of the House, whether, when a Bill appeared on the list as a dropped Order, something might not be done to make it still competent for an hon. Member to renew his Notice of opposition, so that the Bill should not be revived without the block? If he saw standing in the list of Bills which wore dropped Orders, a Bill against which he had given Notice of opposition, could he also put down the Notice of opposition on the chance of the Bill being revived upon some future day?

MR. SPEAKER

I do not think the hon. and learned Member would be in Order in giving Notice of opposition to a Bill that is dropped.

MR. W. H. SMITH

wished to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. It was quite evident that, in the existing state of things, it was possible for a Rule, which was intended for the protection of the House, to be evaded by an hon. Member in charge of a Bill. It was quite possible that a Bill might be dropped intentionally, and revived again the next day, with the Notice of opposition which originally stood against it having been got rid of. He did not say that that course would be taken, but that it was quite possible for it to be taken. He, therefore, wished to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, who was responsible, in a great measure, for the conduct of the Business of the House, to take the matter into his consideration, with a view of preventing any future irregularity. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would propose such an alteration of the Rules as would, at all events, secure fairness between all Parties. If it was in the power of an hon. Member to give Notice of opposition to a measure, and prevent the Bill thus opposed from being taken into consideration after a certain hour of the night, then it appeared to him that that Notice should live for the same length of time after the Bill was restored to the Order Book, as it would have done, if the Bill had not become a "dropped Order." If, for instance, the block remained against a Bill for a week or 10 days, then the Notice of opposition should live for the same time. He understood that the reason for allowing the block was to secure that any measure brought forward should receive consideration at a proper hour of the evening.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he thought that all who had heard the conversation must be of opinion that there was clearly a block at present which required to be touched in some way or other, in order to prevent evasion and the dropping of a measure to get rid of opposition. He was of opinion that they ought not to encourage such a practice; but they ought, on the contrary, if possible, to prevent it. Then, in regard to the proceedings of that night, he thought they had had an admirable precedent afforded by the judicious conduct of the Speaker in the last Parliament, when the right hon. Gentleman pointed out the inconvenience of proceeding with a Bill which had been dropped, and then suddenly revived, without the Notice of opposition being revived with it. In that case the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill felt that, under the circumstances, he could hardly persevere with the measure. With regard to the suggestion that Notice should be given before reviving a dropped Order, that might be a fair suggestion, if it were applicable only to those Orders which were dropped artificially, so to speak, and intentionally; but he was doubtful what its effect might be with regard to Orders that were dropped accidentally from the unexpected interruption of the Sitting of the House, As to the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) that the block should be made to adhere to the Bill, notwithstanding the Bill becoming a dropped Order, as long as the Bill continued on the Order Book it appeared to him that it deserved consideration; and he should be willing to ask the aid of the Speaker, and of the other Authorities of the House, with a view to see what arrangements could be made.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

wished to ask a Question on a point of Order. He understood the contention to be that a dropped Order was not a dead Order, but a living Order in a certain sense, though in a state of suspended animation. He wished to know whether there was any Order of the House on the subject, or whether it was simply a usage which had grown up, that the Notice of block should disappear from the Paper on the Order being dropped? If that were not so—but the Notice of opposition still possessed a relative and satellite life—it would be very easy for the Speaker to deal with the question, and to direct the printers to print with the dropped Order the Notice of opposition which had been given to it. That might easily be done unless there was a special Order to the contrary, of which he was certainly not aware.

MR. GIBSON

desired to say a word in regard to what the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had said. Although it was a very cumbrous way of overcoming the difficulty, the matter might be met in this way. A Bill was not dead when it became dropped, but was in a state of suspended animation; and it might be revived by the method which had been adopted in this particular case. Supposing, then, the analogy was followed which was applied to the Adjournment for the Whitsuntide Holidays, the period during which the Bill remained suspended should be excluded from the period that would count against the block, and then, when the Bill was revived, the block would revive with it. That would be one way of dealing with the difficulty. He would only remind the House that the last Adjournment for the Whitsuntide Holidays lasted for more than 10 days; and the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair very wisely decided that the block placed against certain Bills should extend over that period. From the necessities of the case, and for the convenience of the House, the Speaker was compelled to exclude the days comprised in the Holidays. The same convenience might suggest that the period covered by the suspended animation should be also excluded from the operation of the block. That might be one mode of getting out of the difficulty. The only other mode which occurred to him would be still more cumbrous and did not commend itself to his mind in the same persuasive way—namely, provided that inasmuch as a Bill was not dead, but only in that extraordinary position with the power of being revived, it should be competent for a Member to give also Notice of block, with the same power of reviving it in the event of a dropped Bill being revived. He admitted that that would not be a very convenient mode of dealing with the matter, but still it could be adopted; because, if a Bill was not dead and might be revived, then the objection which had been made to it might be revived with it.

EARL PERCY

said, that, with regard to what had fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, there was a great difference between an Adjournment of the House and a dropped Order. The Adjournment for the Whitsuntide Holidays was a certain quantity. They all knew how long it would last, and could calculate how long the block would last; whereas, in the case of a dropped Order, the Notice naturally expired, and unless an hon. Member was constantly on the watch for the dropped Order being revived his block would be suspended. That was an entirely different case from the Adjournment for the Whitsuntide Holidays.

MR. ANDERSON

asked whether it would not be something in the nature of a trick for any Member intentionally to allow his Bill to become a revived Order in that way? Would that not be something in the nature of a trick which no hon. Member would resort to? It was quite clear that the proper thing to do, in the case of a Member wishing to revive a dropped Order, was to provide that the dropped Order should be revived in exactly the same position it was in when it was dropped with all its disabilities attached to it.