HC Deb 22 June 1910 vol 18 cc364-5
Mr. WEDGWOOD

I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, a question of which I have given you private notice relative to your decision yesterday in connection with Bills introduced under the Ten Minute Rule. Yesterday the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) opposed the introduction of a measure under the Ten Minute Rule, whilst stating that he did not intend to divide against the Bill. I wish to know whether we are to accept this as a change of ruling on previous practice in view of the fact that on 9th June last year the following ruling was given by you. The hon. Member for the Montgomery Boroughs (Mr. Rees) rose to oppose a Bill introduced by Mr. Mackarness, and he spoke as follows:— I oppose it; but I do not intend to divide against it. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) then rose on a point of Order, and asked whether it was in order, and you, Sir, gave answer as follows:— I do, not quite know what the position of the hon Member is— That is the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs— The Rule says that any hon. Member who wishes to oppose a Bill is to make 'a brief explanatory statement '— These are the words which I want to draw special attention to— and I think the Rule contemplates that the hon. Member means to go further and divide against the Bill. Thereupon the hon. Member said:— Of course, I shall immediately accept your ruling. And the Bill was read. In view of that previous ruling, I want to know whether in future hon. Members may oppose Bills introduced under the Ten Minute Rule while expressing their intention of not dividing against the measure?

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member will see that my observations of a year ago were not of a very decided character. I said, "I apparently think the Rule contemplates so-and-so." On further consideration, I am bound to say it appears to me it would be unfair not to permit an hon. Member to make a statement in opposition to a Motion unless he is prepared to divide. As I said yesterday, it is impossible to compel a Member to go into the Division Lobby and to divide against it. Therefore, if an hon. Member begins by saying he intends to divide and finally does not divide, he has yet made his speech. It seems to me rather unfair to allow an hon. Member to introduce a controversial subject and make a controversial speech of ten minutes and then not to allow anybody else to reply unless he gives a solemn promise that he means to divide. On further consideration, therefore, I do not think that the Rule can intend that a Division should be necessary; but I think that the justice of the case would be met, if an hon. Member seriously intends to oppose the Bill at some future stage, that he should have an opportunity in ten minutes of stating his reasons for opposition to the Bill on its introduction. I have stopped lion. Members who are favourable to a Bill rising and saying a few words in support of it, but that is a waste of the time of the House, and is clearly not contemplated by the Rule.

Mr. WEDGWOOD

Thank you, Sir.

Mr. REES

May I ask whether on that occasion it was not the case that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford was moved to object to the speech of the hon. Member for the Montgomery Burghs because he had been stopped by you when getting up to criticise the Bill of the hon. Member for Newbury?

Mr. SPEAKER

I am afraid I do not exactly remember the circumstances.

Several other Members took and subscribed the Oath.