MR. J. LOWTHERI rise, Sir, to draw your attention, and that of the House, to what I think is a very important question affecting the Procedure of the House of Commons, which arises out of what occurred at an early hour this morning. It will be in the recollection of some hon. Gentlemen now present that a discussion of some length, involving points of considerable interest, took place with reference to certain clauses of the Registration Bill. The result of that discussion was that there was a very narrow majority in favour of the proposal of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. James Stuart). That the question raised was open to a considerable amount of difference of opinion was proved by the fact that while one Member of the Government spoke one way, another spoke in the opposite sense, and that while one section of the Administration voted in one Lobby, and another section voted in the other 439 Lobby, a third section, headed by the Prime Minister, bolted, and did not vote at all.
MR. GLADSTONEI know not whether I caught the expression of the right hon. Gentleman correctly, but I think he said I "bolted," which is a phrase of an invidious and offensive description. I think I can show even the right hon. Gentleman that what I did was reasonable in my particular position.
§ MR. SPEAKERI did not catch the expression. I thought the term used was "voted."
MR. J. LOWTHERThe right hon. Gentleman objects to my manner of characterizing it, and I will not follow that matter up. I was merely pointing out what occurred, with the view of showing that the public Notice which I subsequently gave was a most legitimate one.
§ MR. SPEAKERI understood the right hon. Gentleman was rising to a point of Order.
MR. J. LOWTHERA point of Procedure, Sir. The point I wished to raise was whether, having given public Notice, as I did, that it was my intention, on the third reading of the Registration Bill, to move that it be recommitted, with the specific object of giving the House an opportunity of reconsidering the decision it arrived at, as I have said, by a narrow majority, an opportunity should not have been given me of making that Motion? That Notice, publicly given by me from my place in the House, was handed to the Clerk at the Table. Subsequently, a discussion occurring at considerable length on some minor points that remained to be dealt with in the Bill, and as it was getting on for 2 o'clock in the morning, I relied upon the Forms of the House and the general practice of Parliament that an opportunity would be afforded me, in accordance with the Notice I had publicly given, to raise the question again on the third reading of the Bill.
§ MR. HEALYI rise, Sir, to a point of Order. I wish to ask you whether questions on points of Order should not be addressed to the Chair?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe right hon. Gentleman is going into the question at great length. I am waiting to hear the point of Order on which he appeals to the Chair.
MR. J. LOWTHERMy remarks, Sir, have been delayed by the interruptions which have come from both sides of the House. They have been protracted beyond the length they would ordinarily have attained by these interruptions. The point I wish to put is whether it is in accordance with the practice of the House of Commons, when public Notice has been given of an intention to move the recommitment of a Bill upon the Order of the Day for its third reading, with the object of raising a specific question, that the third reading of the Bill should be moved and carried at the close of the Report stage without any opportunity being afforded to the Member who has given such Notice to make the Motion for the recommitment of the Bill?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEBefore you give your ruling, Sir, upon the question of Procedure submitted to you by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I trust that, with your permission and by the courtesy of the House, I may be allowed to state what actually occurred on the occasion. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should have sought to introduce any controversial matter in reference to the conduct of the Prime Minister in submitting his question. We have nothing to do with that. As a matter of fact, what occurred last night was this—and I am speaking in the presence of Gentlemen who were in the House at the time—the Attorney General, when the Report upon the Registration Bill was completed, proposed to take the third reading to-day, after the Report of the Irish Registration Bill had been disposed of, or, in case that Bill was not finished to-day, then tomorrow, after the grant to the Princess Beatrice had been agreed to; whereupon the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stan hope), without rising from his seat, observed—"Why not now?"—a remark that was received with cheers from all parts of the House. The Attorney General thereupon said that, looking at the extreme urgency of the Bill, he should have been prepared to have asked the House to read it a third time then; but in consequence of the 441 fact that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther) had give Notice of his intention to move the recommitment upon the Order of the Day for the third reading, he felt that he could not make the proposal unless the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire could state that, in his opinion, there was no reason why the third reading should not be taken then. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, who at the time represented the Opposition, saw no reason why it should not be taken, and it was with his distinct sanction that the Bill was read a third time.
§ MR. SEXTONI beg to say that, in my recollection, the statement of the right hon. Baronet opposite with regard to what occurred last night is substantially accurate.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe statement of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board is correct. It is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman gave Notice that on the third reading he would move to recommit the Bill; but I certainly understood that that Notice had been withdrawn with the sanction of his Colleague sitting beside him, and, consequently, I allowed the Motion for the third reading of the Bill to be made. It was a matter for the discretion of the House, and the House gave its assent to the proposal for the third reading of the Bill.
MR. J. LOWTHERI wish to say that I was no party to the withdrawal of the Notice. I had fully intended to move the re-committal of the Bill, and to take the opinion of the House upon the question I had intended again to raise.