HC Deb 21 March 1887 vol 312 cc858-60
MR. T. P. GILL (Louth, S.)

I wish, Mr. Speaker, to put a Question to you upon a point of Order. I see that there are two Notices standing upon the Order Book in the names of the hon. Members for North and South Antrim (Mr. C. E. Lewis and Mr. Macartney) for Tuesday, the 5th of April, a date when the House will probably be in recess for the Easter holidays. One of them is for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the alleged system of jury-packing in Ireland, while the other expresses approval of the action of Her Majesty's Government in reference to the telegram of instructions to the police sent by Captain Plunkett to the District Inspector at Youghal. I wish, Sir, to have your ruling, as a matter of Order, upon both of those Notices, having re- gard to your ruling in the case of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), who desired to raise a debate upon jury-packing when the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech was under discussion. You then ruled that it was not competent for my hon. Friend to allude to the question of jury-packing so long as there was a Notice standing on the Paper in reference to the subject. Now, Sir, one of those Notices refers to the question of jury-packing, and the other to the instructions of Captain Plunkett to the police of Youghal to fire upon the people if necessary. What I wish to know is, whether your ruling extends to the preclusion of Amendments to the Motion, "That you do leave the Chair," for the purpose of going into Committee of Supply upon the Civil Service Estimates; and whether your ruling will extend further to the preclusion of any debate upon the subjects to which these Notices apply in Committee of Supply?

MR. SPEAKER

I cannot presume to settle cases before they arise. I must see and hear what is said in debate before I can give an opinion.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

I also wish to ask a Question, Sir, on a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has just announced that he will take the second reading of a particular Bill on Monday next. But that Bill has not yet been printed, seeing that permission has not been given by the House to read it a first time. Therefore, I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is not contravening the Order of the House which prevents a subsequent stage from being put down before the previous stage has been taken?

MR. SPEAKER

I presume that before the Motion is put down for the second reading the Bill itself will have been printed.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I do not know whether I have put the Question quite clearly. At present the House has not given permission for the introduction and first reading of the Bill, nor has it been printed. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman has announced that he will put down the Order of the Day for the second reading next Monday. What I wish to know is, whether, in doing so, the right hon. Gentleman is not directly contravening a Standing Order of the House?

MR. SPEAKER

Of course, I presume that, in the event of the Bill being read a first time, it will be printed in the interval between that stage and the second reading on Monday.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

In reference to your ruling, Sir, as to the Question put by the hon. Member for South Louth (Mr. T. P. Gill) relating to two Motions standing in the Order Book in the names of the two hon. Members for Antrim, relating to jury-packing and the telegram of Captain Plunkett, I wish to know whether, supposing it is necessary to discuss the question of jury-packing—

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! I gave no ruling on the Question raised. I declined to give any ruling.

MR. CONYBEARE

I was only going to ask your ruling,. Sir, in connection with a Bill of which Notice has been given by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, whether we shall be precluded from discussing the Question relating to jury packing in connection with that Bill, owing to the Notice of Motion which is already standing upon the Notice Paper?

MR. SPEAKER

I cannot see that any objection arises as a point of Order.