§ MR. J. MORLEY (Newcastle-on-Tyne)In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the House may reckon on having the proposal of the Government to discharge the Order relating to the Sugar Bounties Bill taken as the first business of the day on Thursday next?
§ * MR. W. H. SMITHIt was not the intention of the Government to put 1166 down the Motion for the discharge of this Bill as the first Order for Thursday. No good purpose would be served by doing so. I am under the impression that it would not be in order for any debate to arise on that occasion, and that some other opportunity will be found if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a debate; but I will communicate further with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian on the subject.
§ MR. J. MORLEYI think a good purpose would be served by enabling the Government to keep its engagement. We understood that the discharge of the Order would be put down first on Thursday, not with a view to a long discussion, which might perhaps be out of place, but a very moderate discussion would probably suffice. A new impression seems to have formed itself in the right hon. Gentleman's mind since he made his previous statement.
§ * MR. W. H. SMITHI certainly did not intend to convey the impression to the right hon. Gentleman or his friends that the discharge of the Order would be placed first on the Paper. It was my duty to ascertain whether it would be in order that a debate should arise on that occasion before making arrangements as to the course of Business. As no discussion would be in order on that occasion another opportunity must be found for it if desired.
§ MR. J. MORLEYI do not want to press the matter; but only the other night the right hon. Gentleman told us that he was willing to place the discharge of the Order as the first Order of the Day, and to allow a discussion to be taken on it.
§ * MR. W. H. SMITHI am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to make a statement which I am not prepared to accept, and I cannot accept that account of my statement as correct. If the right hon. Gentleman refers to any report that may have been made of what fell from me, he will find that I never at any time undertook, or sought to convey, the impression that I would undertake to put down this Motion as the first Order. I consented to postpone it.
§ MR. J. MORLEYAre we to understand, then, that the chance of a discussion on this question is indefinitely postponed?
§ * MR. W. H. SMITHI am afraid it is. I also stated—and I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian is not in his place—that I would refer to the question again in that right hon. Gentleman's presence.
§ MR. GLADSTONE (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian)(who subsequently entered the House): It may be for the convenience of the House if I am permitted to put a question to the Chair on the subject of the question which stood in my name to be addressed to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and which has, I understand, been answered in my absence. My question had reference to the Motion which will have to be made in order to get rid—to use a colloquial phrase—of the Sugar Bounties Bill for this Session. That, I presume, would be the discharge of the Order; and the object of my question was to secure not that it should come on on Thursday next, but that when it did come on it should come on as the first Order. That would certainly give a convenient opportunity for a discussion, not upon the merits, but upon the postponement of that Bill. I am aware that the merits of the Bill could be discussed on the Order to discharge it; but I have respectfully to ask you, Sir, whether it will not be perfectly in order, when the Order of the Day is read that it may be discharged, to make any observations then addressed properly and strictly to the postponement of the Bill?
§ * MR. SPEAKERI have already had the opportunity of stating, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, who asked me whether it was possible to have a discussion on the withdrawal of a Bill, what I have always stated, and what I now repeat, that no Second Reading speech can be made upon the withdrawal of a Bill. The Motion not being for the second reading but for the withdrawal of the Bill, it is obvious that the same latitude of discussion could not arise as could arise on the Order for the Second Reading. Of course, the postponement from day to day, the question to what day it shall be postponed, or even the circumstances under which it is withdrawn may be gone into; but I have always pointed out that a stricter limitation would apply to a debate on the withdrawal of a Bill 1168 than to a debate on the Motion for the Second Reading.
§ MR. GLADSTONEMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite whether he is in a position to name a day upon which the withdrawal of the Order may be moved, and a convenient opportunity afforded for making observations strictly limited to the question of the withdrawal of the Bill?
§ * MR. W. H. SMITHI am not now in a position to name a day; but I will between this and Thursday endeavour to communicate with the right hon. Gentleman, and to name some day after the Committee on the Scotch Local Government Bill is concluded.