ADJOURNED DEBATE OX MOTION FOR COMMITMENT. (Hansard, 16 April 1883)

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, that it appeared hardly respectful to the House or to the Bill that no Law Officer of the Crown was present on the resumption of the debate, the Government being solely represented by the Postmaster General and the Judge Advocate General, who had nothing to do with the question before the House. He would remind the House that this was not one of the Bills which it was intended to refer to Grand Committees when these Committees were instituted. The measure proposed to revolutionize the whole criminal procedure of the country; and, therefore, it ought to be discussed by the whole House, and not by a mere section of it. He had heard the speech in which the Prime Minister laid his proposals on the subject before the House, and he distinctly stated that the Bills to be brought before those Committees were to be Bills of an exceptional character, or Local Bills, and Bills of a non-partizan character; and he further stipulated that, with regard to all Bills referred to those Committees, the right of full discussion by the House should be preserved. Now, he asked the House whether a Bill which was of a partizan character and made an entire revolution in the criminal procedure of the country was a Bill fairly coming within the conditions he had adverted to? It was not a general, but a sectional, Bill, and it was not a Local Bill, but an Imperial one. It was not of a non-partizan character, for almost every one of its clauses 333 raised considerations that embittered and envenomed party differences in that House. The Prime Minister declared that the establishment of these Committees was not intended to destroy the responsibility of the House. That the House was losing its responsibility was pretty clear from the thinness of the House during the discussion of the Bill. This Bill was obviously partizan in its character, and would be administered with that view in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman further stated that the Bills to be referred to the Grand Committees should be Bills that concerned only sections of the House, and not the whole body of Members. That, again, was a condition which the Attorney General's Motion did not comply with, as this Bill directly concerned public rights.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is discussing the Bill. He cannot discuss the merits of the Bill on the Motion before the House.

§ Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, he wanted to prove the partizan character of the Bill, to show that it was not one of the class mentioned by the Prime Minister to be referred to Committees. They were left absolutely without information as to the grounds upon which the Bill was to be referred to a Grand Committee. The Bill had been recommended to the House by one speech only from the Treasury Bench, that of the Attorney General, which did not exceed 20 minutes in duration. It was said that the Bill was practically identical with that which had been introduced during the late Parliament. But that was not so, as the latter abolished all the White boy offences of former Statutes, which were left untouched by the present Bill.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is discussing the Bill on its merits. He is out of Order in doing so.

§ Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, it was almost impossible to discuss the Motion without referring to the Bill. He regretted the indifference the House was beginning to show in regard to its gravest responsibilities since the establishment of these Grand Committees, and the disposition manifested to delegate its duties to those Bodies. He further objected that rights of discussion would not be preserved if the Motion of the Attorney General were adopted. The control which the House had over its legis- 334 lation should not be given up lightly and without full consideration; and he could only characterize the Motion as an audacious attempt on the part of the Government to carry through before a Grand Committee a measure whoso nature required that it should be reserved for the whole House. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
said, the Bill was a very comprehensive one, and when the Bill of last Session was introduced, it was promised that there should be an opportunity for the House to discuss every clause and word in it. It was true that even on important subjects there was frequently a very small attendance in Committees of the Whole House; but the discussion might, at any time, be put an end to if fewer than 40 Members were present. That was a great safeguard. But the most important principles might be settled in Grand Committee by a quorum of 20 Members. He was far from saying the Bill was a bad one; but it was a Bill of a character which made it dangerous that the ordinary safeguards with which discussion in Committee of the Whole House surrounded public rights should be taken away, as they would be if it was withdrawn from the consideration of the Whole House. He begged to second the Amendment of the hon. Member for Galway.

§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY
said, he presumed that they were at a stage of the Bill corresponding to the Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." If he was wrong, then one opportunity for discussion had been lost. He feared that the reference of Bills to the Grand Committees would deprive the House of much of its power in respect to measures that had passed the second reading. He was inclined to think that the Bill might be rejected at the present stage under the Rules of the House. The Grand Committee system, he thought, was admirable in the case of important mea- 335 sures full of detail, and upon the general purposes of which the House was agreed; but this Bill was certainly not of such a character that it could be safely left in the hands of a Grand Committee. They could all recollect what important Amendments had, within recent experience, been introduced into the Prisons Bill and the Army Discipline legislation in Committee of the Whole House. Now, a Grand Committee was wholly unsuited for, and incapable of, any operation of that kind. As a measure was sent up to such a Committee so must it come down, except in regard to the smaller and more minute details. ["No!"] The other night, when they were about to discuss this measure, they were told every moment that the principle of the Bill was settled, and that they could not discuss details on the second reading. But some of these so-called details were most important innovations, making a wholesale and momentous change in the legislation of this country. There were four of these so-called details to which he invited special attention. He thought the powers given to the Justices to examine anyone they thought could give evidence, and to commit from week to week, was a most important innovation in the Criminal Law of this country, and one which ought to be discussed fully in Committee of the Whole House.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, he had already ruled that he could not allow discussion on the details of the measure. The Question before the House was merely a sequel to the second reading; and at this stage the House never allowed any general discussion on the merits of the Bill.

§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY
said, he was endeavouring to assign reasons why the Bill should be considered by a Committee of the Whole House instead of being relegated to a Standing Committee. He would, however, only refer in general terms to the fact that certain portions of this Bill could not be adequately discussed in a Standing Committee.

§ MR. DALY
entered his protest against the Bill going to the Grand Committee, on the ground that the objections entertained against the Irish clauses would not receive adequate consideration there. There were only five Irish Members on the Committee, and these could not state 336 all the objections to the Bill which, as had been pointed out, contained many objectionable clauses. Public opinion would be better represented if the clauses to which objection was taken were allowed to be discussed in that House. With regard to the powers given to Justices of the Peace—

§ MR. SPEAKER
I must again remind hon. Members that the merits of the Bill cannot be discussed upon the Motion before the House.

§ MR. LEAMY
said, the ruling of Mr. Speaker amply justified the opposition offered by Irish Members to the second reading. The Bill would effect alterations which did not come within the definition of procedure at all, but which would revolutionize the law to a considerable extent. They had not been allowed to discuss the Bill on the second reading at any length, and how it was to go to a Grand Committee. He supposed that they must draw consolation from the fact that the Bill would again come down to the House, and that the right hon. Gentleman would, perhaps, find on the Report stage that he had not gained so much as he thought he would by referring the measure to a Standing Committee instead of to a Committee of the Whole House.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, he did not entertain the same objections to this Bill as some of his hon. Friends. It was introduced first in 1879, on the recommendation of three eminent Judges, one of them being an Irish Judge in whom the people had more than usual confidence. He thought that time would be saved if the Bill was not referred to a Grand Committee; and, if it was discussed in the House itself, that would afford a welcome excuse for postponing the Affirmation Bill. On the Grand Committee, there was only one practising barrister representing a Home Rule constituency. Unless the constitution of the Committee were changed, its proceeding could not give satisfaction to the Irish Members. It embraced 14 Whig lawyers, and the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins) was the only practising barrister upon the Committee from the Home Rule Benches. The other Irish Members upon the Committee were a gallant Colonel of Artillery, a country Gentleman fond of following the hounds, and a literary Gentleman. If the Bill were referred to the Grand Committee, 337 Irish Members would have to discuss it at great length on Report.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, he protested against the Bill being taken away from discussion at the hands of Irish Members. They had been precluded on the second reading from discussing the clauses, and now they were told they could not discuss them on the Motion to refer the Bill to the Standing Committee; and, moreover, the Government had not replied to the criticisms which had been passed on the Bill. The Bill did not come within the description of those which the Prime Minister said were to be referred to Grand Committees, and it would be a breach of faith so to refer it. Only five Members of his Party were included in the 79 Members, and only one of the five was a lawyer. It was a penal measure, and Irishmen were specially affected by penal measures. The discussions of the Grand Committees would become practically mechanical, because they were shut in from the public Press. ["No, no!"] He thought they were. Their proceedings were practically conducted in the dark, and nothing was laid before the House to enable them to form an adequate judgment of those proceedings, the Minutes and Reports being useless to those specially interested in the subjects under discussion. He again protested against the Motion to refer the Bill to the Grand Committee; and in the Committee he should take the opportunity of raising several points which he, nevertheless, thought ought to be decided by the House itself.

§ MR. T. C. THOMPSON
said, there were several provisions of the Bill that were so dangerous and so new that they required the assent of all the Members of the House; and, unless they had some assurance that the Bill would come before them in such a way that these points could be discussed, he should oppose the reference to a Grand Committee.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
reminded the House that the proposal to refer the Bill to a Standing Committee could not have been unexpected. The Grand Committees were called into existence for the very purpose of dealing with such Bills as the one before the House; and he failed to see how the Bill could be properly dealt with in any other way, as it would be an almost impossible task to amend it in Committee of the Whole House without 338 the aid of a Parliamentary draftsman. There would be an opportunity of discussing the Bill upon Report; but he was sure, notwithstanding what had been said in the course of that discussion, that there would be nothing more than fair discussion when the Bill came back from the Standing Committee. Hon. Members, having made their protest, could not expect the Government to act in the face of the statement of the Prime Minister in the Autumn Session that this was one of the Bills which would go before the Standing Committee. He would do his best to see that there was no undue haste; and he was sure that the Standing Committee would be a more satisfactory tribunal to protect the interests of the public, and reduce the Bill to a proper form, than a Committee of the Whole House. With reference to the remark of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), that he should criticize the Bill clause by clause, he did not receive that statement with alarm. On the contrary, he looked forward to some alteration being made by the Committee; and he had no doubt the hon. Member would contribute materially to the improvement of the Bill. He trusted, therefore, that the House would allow the Bill to be referred to the Grand Committee.

§ MR. ONSLOW
said, if the hon. Member for Gal way (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) went to a division, he should certainly support his Amendment. He did not think the Grand Committees would be of much service, and the House would never know their reasons for accepting or rejecting Amendments. A Bill such as that before the House was essentially one for a Committee of the Whole House to consider.

§ MR. T. D. SULLIVAN
said, he should support the Amendment, on the ground that a Bill which touched the liberty of the subject in several new ways ought to be dealt with by the Whole House. It was a Bill more for laymen than lawyers to deal with; and, therefore, laymen should have a full opportunity of discussing it. The measure was no mere codification of the existing law, but contained novel and objectionable principles, that ought not to be lightly sanctioned.

§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
observed, that the House would in future be very loth to send Bills to Grand 339 Committees if it there by lost an opportunity of discussing them. He rose because he understood Mr. Speaker to rule that any Bill which was referred by the Government to a Grand Committee could not be discussed again on its clauses. He wished to know at what stage the House would have an opportunity of again discussing the Bill?

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, that when a Bill had been read a second time altogether without reference to the New Rules, the Speaker invited the hon. Member in charge of the Bill to say whether he proposed to refer it to a Committee of the Whole House or to a Select Committee; and upon that question, as upon the pro-sent question, no debate upon the merits of the Bill had ever been allowed.

§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
said, this was a new departure, and he thought the House would be very 10th to part with any of its privileges. He wished to ask whether the House was not to have an opportunity of reviewing the proceedings in the Grand Committee on the Report?

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
asked whether he was right in supposing that, when a proposal was made to refer a Bill to a Grand Committee, it was competent for the opponents of the measure to discuss its principle in order to show that its very nature made it expedient to deal with the Bill in Committee of the Whole House?

§ MR. SPEAKER
presumed that, at the period contemplated by the noble Lord, the principle of the Bill had already been discussed on the Motion for the second reading. It would, therefore, be irregular to renew that discussion on the Motion to refer the Bill to a Standing Committee.

§ MR. BIGGAR
asked whether the Amendment did not authorize the Mover of it to raise the question whether this was a suitable Bill for a Standing Committee; and whether, on that Amendment, it was not competent to discuss the merits of the Bill?

§ MR. SPEAKER
The Main Question before the House is the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General that this Bill be committed to a Standing Committee. Upon that an Amendment has been moved, and the Question will be put in this form—"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." If 340 that proposition be affirmed, no other Amendment can be moved.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
said, that the House was already in possession of the intention of the Government that this Bill was to be referred to a Grand Committee; and, therefore, he could understand the ruling that it would not be competent for the House now to discuss the principle of the Bill. But if the House was not in possession of the intention of the Government to refer a Bill to a Grand Committee, would it not be competent, after the Bill had been read a second time, for hon. Members to oppose the Motion to refer it to a Grand Committee, and, in doing so, to refer to the principle of the Bill?

§ MR. SPEAKER
If the principle of the Bill has been decided on the second reading, no further discussion on the merits of the Bill can be allowed.

§ MR. WARTON
asked whether this Bill could be said to have a principle, as it was a Codification Bill?

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. and learned Member has propounded an argument. It is not for me to decide what is a principle.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
asked in what way the Motion to refer the Bill to a Grand Committee differed from the Motion that the House go into Committee on the Bill, on which occasion the discussion on the principle could be revived?

§ MR. SPEAKER
The Motion differs in this way. The House has now read the Bill a second time, and, according to the ordinary practice, the Speaker has to ask the Member in charge of the Bill what course he proposes to take with respect to the Committee on the Bill. He makes a Motion either "That the Bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House" or "to a Select Committee." The right hon. and learned Gentleman moves, "That this Bill be referred to a Standing Committee," and upon that Question no debate on the principle can be allowed, as upon a Motion to refer a Bill to a Select Committee.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, that undoubtedly it was a common practice for Members opposing a Bill to allow the second reading to pass, because an opportunity would be allowed of discussing the principle on going into Committee. He wanted to know whether, upon referring a Bill to a Standing Com- 341 mittee, that opportunity passed away? He did not think that in discussing the new Standing Order it was understood that such would be the effect.

§ MR. ONSLOW
asked what opportunity there would be for any hon. Member to move that this Bill do not go before a Standing Committee, and to give his reason why the Bill should go before a Committee of the Whole House?

§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF
submitted that the Motion to refer the Bill to a Standing Committee was equivalent to the Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," and that, therefore, there should be the same right of full discussion.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I have already stated my view. According to the immemorial practice of the House, after a Bill has been read a second time, the Speaker calls upon the Member in charge to say what course he intends to take with regard to the Committee, who would then propose to refer the Bill either to a Committee of the Whole House or to a Select Committee. Sometimes a debate arises upon that; but no discussion upon the merits of the Bill is allowed on such an occasion.

§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
asked whether, when this Bill had come from the Grand Committee, it would be competent for the House to review the whole of the proceedings in the Grand Committee, if the Motion were made to recommit the Bill?

§ MR. SPEAKER
The New Rule has made no alteration whatever in that respect. On the Report the House can go through the Bill clause by clause and line by line, and a proposition may be made to re-commit the Bill.

§ MR. E. STANHOPE
asked whether, when a Bill was going through in the ordinary way, a second opportunity was not afforded of discussing the principle of the Bill on the Motion for going into Committee? He reminded the House that second readings were often allowed to be taken on the promise that another opportunity of discussing the principle of Bills would be forthcoming. If that were so, then the House had a right to discuss the principle of the Bill twice.

§ MR. GIBSON
said, it had been distinctly laid down that this was no automatic procedure, that in each case there must be a distinct Motion, and that a Minister could not by his ipse dixit deter- 342 mine to what sort of a Committee a Bill should go, but must satisfy the House that the Bill was a proper one to go to one of the Standing Committees on Law or Trade. It did not follow because a Bill dealt with a question of law that it should go to the Standing Committee on Law. Supposing there was a Bill to destroy Trial by Jury, that would be a Law Bill in one sense; but it would be unfair if one of the most cherished institutions of the country should not be discussed in that House, and the House would wish to have it so discussed. It was of immense importance to the House that the power should not be taken away from them of expressing an independent judgment on the question as to what Committee any particular Bill should be referred to. Many hon. Members might be of opinion that a Bill would interfere with one of the most cherished institutions of this country; and, surely, it should not be competent to the Minister in charge to refer such a Bill without full debate to a Standing Committee.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, that the House was indebted to the Prime Minister, towards the close of the Autumn Session, for the insertion in the Standing Order of the words— Provided that there should in each case be a distinct reference of any Bill to either of the Standing Committees. Having regard to that fact, and to the spirit of the interpretation put upon those words by the President of the Board of Trade in regard to the Bankruptcy Bill this Session, he would now submit to the Speaker whether it was not, as a matter of fact, within the Privileges of the House, whenever a Bill came back from the Standing Committee, to move, as an Amendment to the proposal for the consideration of the Bill, "That the Bill be re-committed," a course which had always been open at the Report stage of a Bill.

§ MR. ONSLOW
pointed out that on the Ballot Act Continuance Bill, in the Orders of the Day, there was an Amendment, on the Motion for going into Committee, "That this House will, on this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee." Would it be possible on that Amendment to discuss the merits of the Bill?

§ MR. SPEAKER
In answer to the Question of the hon. Member, I have no hesitation in saying that it would be in 343 Order to discuss the principles of that Bill. In regard to the question which has been put to me by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson), I have to say it is open to the House, when the Bill comes up from the Standing Committee, to move that the Bill be recommitted as a whole, or re-committed as to certain clauses. There seems now to be a desire to discuss the principle of the Bill a second time; but the House will bear in mind that on Thursday last the principle of the Bill was discussed, and I cannot see anything in the New Rules which justifies me in saying that under those Rules the principle of the Bill can now be discussed a second time.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, anxious as he was to support the ruling of the Chair, he must ask this question— Did not the new procedure create a new state of things? On Thursday last the House read this Bill a second time, and the question now was, whether the character and quality of the measure was such as to make it properly a Bill to be discussed by a Standing Committee, or in Committee of the Whole House?—and he sought guidance as to the limits of the discussion, for he could not conceive how the matter was to be discussed without, at least, touching the fringe of the principles of the Bill.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, the distinction just laid down by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Beresford Hope) opposite, as to the right of discussing the nature of the Bill upon the Motion that it be referred to a Standing Committee, was precisely applicable to the old and familiar practice of the House, that, in certain cases, a Bill should be referred to a Select Committee—nay, more, the distinction was broader, because the reference to a Select Committee was more widely severed from a reference to a Committee of the Whole House than was a reference to a Standing Committee; and, therefore, if the argument which they had just heard was good, it would follow that they should find the argument sustained by reference to the practice of the House in debating Motions for the reference of Bills to Select Committees. If that argument was good, it would have found its way into the practice of the House, and the occasion of moving that this Bill or that Bill be referred to a Select Committee would have an occasion still more suitable for the 344 use of the liberty of the House in discussing the Bill in detail than it could possibly be in moving to refer it to a Standing Committee. He was himself pretty confident that it never had been the usage of the House to debate at length the nature and character of a Bill upon a Motion for referring it to a Select Committee. If that was so, â fortiori, it ought not to become the usage of the House to debate the Bill in its details or particulars on a Motion for its reference to a Standing Committee, and for this reason, because the House was introducing not only a new process to facilitate its own labours, but a process which deprived it of none of its power, because, as pointed out by the Speaker, he apprehended that a Motion could be made for the re-committal of the Bill, in case of need, when it returned from the Standing Committee, and that then whatever was requisite could be stated with regard to the principles and matter of the Bill, as showing that it still required the revision of a Committee of the Whole House. He did not wish to convey to hon. Members the idea that anything he had stated or anything that the Government had thought could in the slightest degree bind the House; but, at the same time, it might be right that they, like others, should put their own construction on the discussion of the proceedings that took place in the autumn. With reference to what then took place, he at that time frankly admitted that there might be cases where the operation of the Standing Committee might have broken down, and been so insufficient that a reference to a Committee of the Whole House of the entire Bill would be necessary. But there arose this question—that there might be, in a Bill generally fit to be disposed of by a Standing Committee, special and important clauses which ought not to be exempted from consideration in a Committee of the Whole House. Therefore, he frankly stated in the Autumn Session, and it was generally admitted by the House, that it would very probably happen that there would be particular clauses for which it might be right to re-commit a Bill, even when a Standing Committee had performed its duties in the most satisfactory manner, not because the Standing Committee had failed, but because the weight, character, and importance of the clauses might be such that they ought on no account to 345 be removed from the jurisdiction of the Committee of the Whole House. He, for one, was not prepared to assent to the contention of the right hon. Gentleman who had spoken last—namely, that the debate on the reference of a Bill to the Standing Committee amounted to a renewal of the debate on the second reading. It might be alleged with truth that now the House had, on an ordinary Bill, an opportunity of discussing it twice before it went into Committee of the Whole House; but it was also true that the House had an opportunity—it had not chosen to make an opportunity—of debating the Bill twice on its principle and details before referring it to a Select Committee. And the analogy of the case was with reference to a Select Committee, because it was when the Bill came back from the Standing Committee that the House would have to consider whether it required a reference to a Committee of the Whole House; and, if so, it would be in a position to debate the principles and details upon the Motion for the re-committal. Therefore, it was quite clear that the debate now in hand ought to be regulated—he would not say by the Rules, but he might say by the same usage as, he believed, had traditionally prevailed in the House when it had been moved to refer a Bill, after the second reading, to a Select Committee.

§ MR. E. STANHOPE
said, the distinction which had been drawn by the right hon. Gentleman between a Bill that went to the Committee of the Whole House and one that was referred to a Select Committee in regard to the opportunities of debate that were afforded was a correct and just distinction; but the Prime Minister had not pointed out the reason for it, which was that, under the old practice, when a Bill was referred to a Select Committee, there was no discussion of its principles and details on the Motion that it be so committed, because the House had a subsequent opportunity of discussing those principles and details on the Motion that the Bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House after it returned from the Select Committee. Under the New Rules, however, when a Bill was referred to a Standing Committee, the stage of a reference to a Committee of the Whole House was expressly abolished. In these circumstances, the reason on which the 346 Prime Minister relied was cut from under his feet. Having had two opportunities hitherto of discussing the principle of a Bill, he did not think the House ought now to be deprived of its right in that respect.

§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON
rose to Order. He wished to know what Question was before the House. He understood that a point of Order had been raised, and that Mr. Speaker had decided it, and, therefore, that it could not be further discussed.

§ MR. ONSLOW
also rose to Order. If the Prime Minister made a lengthened speech, had not hon. Members a right to reply to it?

§ MR. E. STANHOPE
said, that he had no desire to go one step beyond the point under discussion. He should like to ask Mr. Speaker whether it was not competent for any hon. Member to move to add, at the end of the Attorney General's Motion, the words—"Except any particular clauses of the Criminal Code Procedure Bill."

§ MR. SPEAKER
I think the proposition of the hon. Member is so novel that I cannot give an affirmative answer. I never heard of a Bill being referred to a Select Committee in part only.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
said, those who sat in that part of the House were under the impression that Mr. Speaker's ruling was directly contrary to what fell from the Prime Minister in his speech.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I have endeavoured, according to the best of my ability, to state what I believe to be the proper construction of the New Rules. I cannot withdraw from the ruling I have laid down without special instructions from the House.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
said, the observation he made—with the deepest possible respect for the Chair—was that those who sat near him were under the impression that Mr. Speaker's ruling was directly contrary to what had fallen from the Prime Minister.

§ MR. COURTNEY
rose to Order. He wished to know whether, the noble Lord having already spoken on this point, it was competent for him again to speak in reference to it?

§ MR. SPEAKER
If the noble Lord raises some new point he will be in Order: but otherwise he will not.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
said, he had not spoken. He had ventured to put two questions to Mr. Speaker on a point of Order; but that, he apprehended, did not preclude him from replying to the speech of the Prime Minister.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY
rose to Order. The noble Lord had distinctly admitted that he was going to refer to a point of Order which had already been decided by the Speaker.

§ MR. SPEAKER
If the question proposed to be put by the noble Lord on a point of Order cannot be made plain without a reference to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, then, perhaps, the House may be disposed to give the noble Lord some indulgence.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
wished to know whether he was right in interpreting the Speaker's ruling to be that, on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, and that the House do go into Committee upon any ordinary Bill, it was not within the competence of any hon. Member to discuss the principles and the details of such Bill?

§ MR. SPEAKER
In replying to the question of the hon. Member for Guildford I stated precisely the reverse.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
rose to Order. He wished to know whether, in the event of the Attorney General's Motion being carried, he should be in Order in moving that certain clauses of the Bill proposed to be referred to the Standing Committee should be excepted?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
If the Motion of the Attorney General is carried, that will be conclusive of the matter.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
moved— That it be an Instruction to the said Committee that they have power to consolidate the said Bills into one Bill.

§ MR. GRANTHAM
inquired how this was to be done, and whether the Committee would be bound to consolidate the Bills?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, that the Motion only gave the Committee power to consolidate them, which they could exercise at their discretion.

§ MR. PARNELL
had little doubt that the Motion, if agreed to, would be taken by the Committee as authoritative, and that they would feel bound to consolidate the Bills. He thought that coupling the two Bills together would be likely to delay both. One Bill—that relating to appeals—was of a non-contentious character, while the other was highly contentious. It was most undesirable that the passing of the Appeal Bill, which would not give rise to lengthy discussion, should be imperilled by its incorporation with the other Bill. Therefore, he suggested that the House should not pass the Motion, in order that it should be left to the discretion of the Committee to act as they thought best.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
wished to move that it should be an Instruction to the Committee to consider the feasibility of making the Bill harmonize with the spirit and the letter of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I would point out to the hon. Member that it is competent to the Committee to do as he desires without Instruction. It would be against the Rules of the House to instruct the Committee in the manner proposed.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
said, as that was the case, he was, of course, prevented from moving; but he would draw the particular attention of the Attorney General to the point, with a view to the matter receiving his consideration. An enormous part of the Criminal Law was dealt with by the Summary Jurisdiction Act; and it was of the highest importance that any further alteration of the law should be in strict harmony and accord, not only with the letter, but the spirit of that Act.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
wished to know whether it would not be possible, in order to meet the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Parnell), to pass the Criminal Appeal Bill, and then consolidate the provisions of that Bill in the new Criminal Procedure Bill. 349 The Criminal Procedure Bill was not a complete Code, because there was at least one subject—public prosecutions—with which it did not deal. The Judges had spoken of the institution of a Public Prosecutor as a failure. It was a matter of great importance, and he hoped the Attorney General would take care that the question of public prosecutions should be adequately dealt with. He had a Motion on the Paper to make it an Instruction to the Committee to take this matter into consideration, which, if in Order, he should wish to move.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The Motion of the hon. Member would be distinctly out of Order, because the Committee is competent to consider the matter without Instruction.

§ MR. WARTON
wished to know whether, as the Committees on the Criminal Appeal Bill and the Criminal Code Bill were differently constituted, it would be possible to consolidate the two measures.

§ MR. SPEAKER
It is competent for the House to give power to the Standing Committee.