SPECIAL COMMISSION (1888) REPORT. (Hansard, 10 March 1890)

§ (4.5.) MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincoln, Spalding)
Upon a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask your ruling whether it is competent for the First Lord of the Treasury to make this Motion without a notice which must obviously have been given during the sitting of the House? I find in Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, on page 284, this passage— It is ordered that all dropped Orders of the Day be set down in the Order Book, after the Orders of the Day, for the next day on which the House shall sit. But in construing this Order it must be understood that if an Order of the Day has 348 been read and proceeded with, and the House is adjourned before it is disposed of, it is not treated as a dropped Order, but, being superseded, must be revived before it takes its place again in the Order Book. Again, on page 295, Sir Erskine May says— If a Notice of Motion be dropped by the Adjournment of the House before it has been disposed of, it is usually renewed and put down in the Notice paper for some other day, under the same conditions as an original notice. What I wish to ask of you, Mr. Speaker, is whether this Order, having become a dropped Order, can be revived without distinct notice having been given?

§ *(4.7.) MR. SPEAKER
The latter point in the hon. Gentleman's question contains no analogy, because I think it refers to a Notice of Motion, which is a totally different matter. It is absolutely necessary for a Motion of this sort to be made, in consequence of the count-out of the House on Friday, that that which has become a lapsed Order should be revived, and due notice should be, and has been, given.

§ (4.8.) SIR W. HARCOURT (Derby)
I suppose nobody would doubt that it is necessaiy that notice of Motion should be given to revive the Order. That is quite clear in the case of a dropped Order; but the question is rather a different one here. What notice is to be given? Is it a proper notice to revive the Order if it is given on the day on which the Order is to be revived? Whenever notice is given in this Douse it is given the day before, and put down the day before when the House is sitting. There is a case referred to in May's book illustrating his ruling that a notice must be given, and there the case shows that the notice is not given on the day when the notice of Motion is made, but previously. That is the case of the Reformatory Schools (Scotland) Bill on May 9, 1856. The House was counted out on that Motion. I find in the Journals that upon May 10 it was resolved that Upon Thursday, the 22nd inst., the Home resolve itself into Committee on the Reformatory Schools (Scotland) Bill. There was a notice made to revive upon a future day, not upon the same day on which the notice was given. Indeed, I do not exactly know how this notice comes on the Paper. By what 349 order of the House is it there? What I understand is this—I know that, in practice, occasionally notices are given to revive Committee of Supply, which I imagine stands on a different footing. At all events, I never heard of a, notice of that kind which was opposed, and many things can be done by permission of the House which are not in accordance with the orders of the House. What we ask your ruling upon is whether a notice which has not been put down while the House was sitting in the regular form, so as to be a part of the regular Notices and Orders, can b3 taken on the next day as part of the Orders of the House and without the consent of the House?

§ *(4.10.) MR. SPEAKER
The practice pursued in this case is that which has been invariably followed in the case of Supply. I know of no other practice. And when Supply has been counted out on Friday it has to be set up by a notice on Monday. I know of no distinction between Supply as an Order of the Day and any other Government business which has been, up to the count-out, an Order of the Day. I know nothing about the notice; but I assume that proper notice has been given, and that it is competent for the House to go on under that notice with that which was interrupted on Friday night, by what I suppose I may say was an accident, provided that it is convenient to the House that it should lie pursued on this the next following day.

§ (4.11.) MR. W. E. GLADSTONE (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian)
If, Sir, your statement is that the case of Supply has not been treated specially, but that you are able, as the Speaker of the House of Commons, to say that all other Motions fall under the same governing considerations as a Motion of Supply, that, I should take it, is quite conclusive on the point at issue. I own I had been under the impression that Supply had been subject to special treatment.

§ * MR. SPEAKER
I said that I knew of no distinction between Supply as an Order of the Day and any other Government business which up to the time of "its interruption had been an Order of the Day; but I know of no case of an Order of the Day; other than Supply which has been counted out on Friday night being sot up in this way.

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
It appears from the case quoted by my right hon. 350 Friend that there is a distinct precedent to the opposite effect, namely, a case where a debate on an Order of the Day was dropped and revived by a regular notice. But another question has come up with regard to the notice. I have always understood two things with regard to notices. One is that a notice given during the sitting of the House is no notice at all except for a subsequent sitting of the House. The second thing is that no notice can by any possibility be given so as to be a good notice except when the House is sitting. I would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite, though it is hardly necessary, whether this notice was given when the House was sitting? These are questions of considerable importance.

§ *(4.12.) THE FIRST LORD of the TREASURY (Mr. W. H. Smith,) Strand, Westminster
Notice was given of the Motion precisely as in the case of Motions in relation to Supply when Supply is counted out. I am not concerned to describe the incident of Friday night. I think we may fairly consider it to be an incident which will not occur again. I acknowledge it is the duty of the Government to endeavour by all means to keep a House when Government business is in progress, and especially on Friday. [Cries of"Order!"]

§ * MR. SPEAKER
It will be better that the right hon. Gentleman should reserve his remarks for the Motion.

§ *(4.13.) MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)
Upon the point of order, I wish to ask if it is competent for any Member to hand in a notice of Motion after you, Sir, have left the Chair, directing that any particular Order of the Day shall have precedence over any other Order?

§ *(4.14.) SIR W. HARCOURT
One other question, Sir, I would venture to submit to you. This notice must have been put upon the Paper by the officers of the House. I want to know by what authority, when the House is not sitting, a notice is put upon the printed Papers of the House; and whether, if the Government may do it, any other Member may do so also1? That is a question which lies at the root of all our business.

§ * MR. SPEAKER
No liberty ought to be taken by the Government or any individual in the House. I know nothing of when the notice was given, or 351 how it appears on the Paper. I imagine it must have been given during the sitting of the House.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
Then I ask the right hon. Gentleman, was this notice given when the House was sitting?

§ * MR. W. H. SMITH
The notice was put on the Paper precisely as in the case of all notices relating to Supply when it has been dropped—that is, the moment the count-out took place.

§ (4.15.) SIR W. HARCOURT
Now I am in a position to ask whether a notice put on the Paper after the House has risen was a notice which the clerks at the Table or any other officer had authority to put upon the Paper; and whether it ought not to be treated as if it were not on the Paper at all?

§ (4.16.) MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)
Upon the question of order, I beg to inform the House that I came to the Table some minutes before jou had left the House, and the clerks had not then received the notice of the First Lord of the Treasury.

§ * MR. SPEAKER
With that matter I am not in any way competent to deal. The only precedent I know of for this course is the case of notice for the revival of Supply on a Monday.

§ (4.17.) MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)
May I submit to you, Sir, that Supply is governed by a Standing Order, which requires the Government to put down Supply on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday? That establishes a great distinction between this case and that of Supply; and the question arises, by what authority are the Government making a new precedent, and by what authority have the clerks at the Table put this down as the first Order? Supply may be put down, of course, in any state of the Paper, and in any part of it.

§ * MR. SPEAKER
In the case of Supply it does not follow, although it may be put down for Monday, Wednesday, and Friday that it will be taken. I did not quite catch what the other question of the hon. and learned Gentleman was.

§ (4.18.) MR. T. M. HEALY
This particular matter appears on the Paper of to-day as an Order of the Day. Supply is governed by a Standing Order, which obliges the Government to put it down on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday; 352 but this is not an Order of the Day, and, not being so, how is it that it happens to figure as an Order of the Day?

§ * MR. SPEAKER
I am not concerned in defending any particular course as long as it is consonant with order. With respect to the fact that a notice of Supply may occupy any place on Monday's Paper, I would point out that it does not follow that Supply will be taken on Monday because it appears upon the Paper.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
This particular matter cannot be an Order of the Day, because you, Sir, could not put the Question on Friday that it be taken to-day. How is it, then, that it appears on the Paper as an Order of the Day, and, moreover, as the first?

§ * MR. SPEAKER
It can only come on as the first Order of the Day after the Motion of the First Lord of the Treasury that it be renewed has been carried. The hon. and learned Member will observe that, whilst the subject appears on the Order Paper, there is a line between it and the other Orders of the Day showing that it is of a somewhat anomalous character.

§ (4.20.) SIR W. HARCOURT
You have been asked so many questions, Sir, that I must apologise for troubling you further. We have not yet had an answer to the most important question of all. I want to know whether, if a private Member has his Motion or his Bill counted out on a particular day, he can go to the Clerks' Table immediately afterwards and give notice, and then move at 4 o'clock on the next day that his Motion or Bill be taken that day and the debate resumed? If he cannot, and if the Government are in order in the course which they now propose to take, of course every private Member is placed on a different footing from that occupied by the Government.

§ * MR. SPEAKER
It is not every Member of the House who could make the Motion referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. Motions at half past 4 o'clock relating to the business of the House are Motions reserved for Members of the' Government. Therefore there is a distinct difference between a private Member's position, and the position of the Government in relation to the arrangement of business.

§ *(4.21.) MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)
Upon the question, of order I beg respectfully to repeat the question which I put a short time ago, namely, whether it is competent for any Member of this House to hand in after you have left the Chair a notice of Motion that some particular Order of the Day shall take precedence of the other Orders? On the face of this notice—number 1—it is clear that it must have been handed in after you, Sir, left the Chair, because it refers to an adjourned debate, which was only adjourned when you left the Chair. Is it competent for any other Member of this House, after you have left the Chair, to hand in a Motion to the clerks at the Table, that a particular Order shall have precedence over the ordinary Orders?

§ * MR. SPEAKER
That is a question which I have repeatedly answered already. I have said that I do not know any distinction between the Order for Supply and the other Orders of the Day. Supply can be taken on certain days, even without notice, and can be set up without notice.

§ (4.22.) MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)
There still appears to be some ambiguity as to when this notice of Motion was given. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury says that he handed it in the moment the count-out took place. May I ask the First Lord this distinct question: Was this Resolution handed in to the clerks at the Table after you, Sir, had left the Chair?

§ * MR. W. H SMITH
Immediately afterwards. I think I have already said so distinctly; but I would point out that the House has already made an order, giving precedence for this debate over all other Orders and business.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
You, Sir, repeated just now certain words of the First Lord, which left the matter in a state of doubt. The right hon. Gentleman has now distinctly stated that the Motion was handed in after you left the Chair, and after the House had risen. May I ask, Sir, whether, under those circumstances, it is competent for this Motion to be made; and whether it is in accordance with the Rules of the House that such a Motion should be taken to-day?

§ * (4.24.)MR. SPEAKER
Whena "count" takes place the fact can only be known at the moment when I have counted the 354 Members present and found them to be less than 40. It is therefore quite possible that, technically, I had left the Chair when the order of the Government was handed in to the clerk at the Table; but the point of difference between my being in the Chair and having technically left it is very minute.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
I wish respectfully to point out that my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) distinctly states that he went to the Table some minutes after you had left the Chair, and that the notice had not then been handed in.

§ MR. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh W.)
I desire to say a word upon the point of order. You, Sir, have stated that the Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate upon the Commission Report is now a lapsed Order. The question I have now to put has reference to the second Motion which stands in the name of the First Lord of the Treasury. I want to know whether, as it relates to an Order of the Day which is not now an Order of the Day it can be put from the Chair?

§ * MR. SPEAKER
The second Motion will probably follow the first, if the first is carried.

§ (4.25.) MR. HALLEY STEWART
As this is creating a new precedent, may I ask if we can have stated to the House the time at which the notice was handed in?

§ * MR SPEAKER
I know nothing about that. The Question I have to put is— That this House will immediately resume the Adjourned Debate on the Amendment [3rd March] to the Motion relating to the Report of the Special Commission (1888).

§ (4.27.) MR. T. M. HEALY
I think that the House is entitled to have some information from the Government as to the exact meaning of the Motion. In the first place, it does not appear in the usual way upon the Paper, but in italics; and I wish to know whether, in future, every private Member will have an opportunity of handing in Motions like that of the First Lord of the Treasury? I am anxious to assist the House in every way; but if by our good nature we allow this Motion to be carried it may after-wands be regarded as a precedent entitling private We Members at any time they may choose between the rising of the House 355 on one day and meeting again on the next, providing the pi-inters can take it, to communicate to the clerks any Motion they may desire to have placed on the Paper for the following day. I wish to know whether these facilities are to be confined to the Treasury Bench, or is the entire House to take part and share in them? Personally, I do not care much about the matter one way or the other; but to the House generally it is a question of the keenest interest as to whether Motions of this kind for the resumption of a debate can be made or not. It is the first instance that anything of the kind has been attempted; and when a novel course of procedure was proposed to be taken by the First Lord last year in reference to the Tithe Bill the Chairman gave a distinct ruling- that it could not be done. The Speaker has said that there is no precedent for the course proposed to be taken. We must not forget that it is a Conservative Government which is proposing to take this course—a Constitutional Government which desires to introduce these novelties into the proceedings of the House. I venture to submit that if this Motion is carried now private Members will in future have no protection whatever in regard to the arrangements between the Government and the clerks at the Table. The Government have had granted to them, although with considerable reluctance, a Standing Order by which they are able to arrange the business of the House; but this Motion amounts to a very considerable extension of that Order. In other words, a matter that is absolutely dead is placed on the Paper, the notice reviving it appears on the Paper, and the dead notice has precedence over the notice of revival. I always understood that it was the practice for you, Mr. Speaker, at the close of Question time, to call on the clerk to read the Orders of the Day. This is not an Order of the Day, and when you call upon the clerk at the Table to read the Orders of the Day, he will read a matter which has been separated from the Orders of the Day by a dash. This is reducing Parliamentary procedure to an absolute absurdity. Accordingly, when the Speaker calls upon the clerk at the Table to read the Orders of the Day, the clerk will have to read "Order of the Day with a dash."

§ *(4.33.) MR. SPEAKER
This is not a matter to be turned into ridicule in any way. The point raised by the hon. and learned Member is of great importance. First of all I would say that the reason why the "A" appears to the Order is that there is an Amendment down on the Paper, asking Members' attention to the Amendment. As to the time at which notices are handed in to the clerk at the Table, I attach great importance to that matter; because it is obvious that there must be a limit of time within which notices are handed in. It is the common practice that notices of Motion by private Members are handed in to the clerk after the House has risen. For instance, Amendments to Bills in Committee are constantly received after the House is technically up. I only mention that as showing that there is no absolute limit of time within a few seconds, or even a minute, so long as the convenience of the House is considered in the matter. I would not permit any undue advantage to be taken as to the time at which notices are receivable when there is a stress of Members handing in notices.

§ (4.36.) MR. T. M. HEALY
I have no intention to treat the question with ridicule. But the matter does seem to me to be a little absurd. This is not an Order of the Day, and it is not numbered, inasmuch as the "A" only meansthat there is an Amendment. As it is not numbered, by what right will it be taken? Then, with regard to the second matter, this is a question which affects the procedure of the House and the business of the House, and does not merely affect the Order of the Day. I hope, therefore, that it will not be drawn into a precedent. If it is made a precedent, it will be within the competence of any Member of the House to require the clerk at the Table to take from him notices affecting the Government or the business of the House upon the very next occasion when the House sits. The Government has done so on the present occasion. May I respectfully suggest that there should be some declaration from the Chair that this particular action on the part of the Government must not be drawn into a precedent. The Government are entitled to less, not more, consideration than private Members, because they have already ample power over the business of the House.

§ (4.38.) MR. LABOUCHERE
There is another question which I should like to put to the First Lord of the Treasury. It was generally agreed that the debate upon the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian should come to an end this evening. When that was agreed it was understood that the matter was to be debated all last week; but by the action of the Government—the right hon. Gentleman has admitted it was an accident—we will sny by the accident of the Government, we were deprived of debating this question for several hours fin Friday. We know that the debate is likely to go on after 12 o'clock, with the result that the speeches made at an early hour of the morning will not be fully reported. Under the circumstances, I think we ought not to agree to the Motion until we know distinctly what are the intentions of the Government. Is it intended that there should not be a Division taken to-night on the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, or that the new Resolution and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stockport should be taken to-night?

§ *(4.40.) MR. W. H. SMITH
The hon. and learned Member for Long ford spoke of this as the extension of the Standing Order. I think he will find there is no extension of the Standing Order; that we are following as nearly as we can the precedents which have guided us in the course we are now taking, and which we take, I think, for the convenience of the House. The hon. Member for Northampton has pointed out that it was generally understood that there should be a Division to-night on the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian. I think it is the first duty of the Government to endeavour to carry out an understanding arrived at between the two sides of the House. I deeply regret the count-out on Friday night. There were 25 Members on this side of the House and only 10 on that side. [Opposition cries of"No."] There were certainly 10 of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this Bench. I regret that there were not more. But I can only offer an excuse which I hope will be accepted—that when Members are frequently called from their dinners to find that their 358 services are not required in the House to make a quorum, they sometimes think that they will not be wanted when the bell rings, and they remain in the dining room. There have been occasions during the present Session when directly you, Mr. Speaker, have returned to the Chair, a count has been moved in a similar way. Members have dropped in, and when they have found that the numbers were greatly in excess of what was required to make a House, it is only human nature, I think, that they should not always respond to the bell. I do not know whether it is possible to appeal to hon. Gentlemen to consider a little the convenience of Members of this House; and when they are aware of the fact that there are in the House many more than are required to make a quorum, whether they think it quite right to deprive hon. Members of the short period of rest which custom has sanctioned. The count was moved on the other side, and interrupted a speech which, I have no doubt, would have been an exceedingly interesting one. I regret that the hon. and learned Member is not able to make his speech; but I hope he will feel that the Government were not intentionally any party whatever to the accident. The hon. Member for Northampton has asked what are the intentions of the Government. I thought it was sufficiently understood that we propose, with the consent of the House, to take a Division on the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite this evening. There are, I believe, three or four other Amendments on the Paper; four, I think. Obviously, if the House desires to debate these Amendments it will be unreasonable to ask the House to sit until these Amendments are disposed of. I wish to consult the convenience of the House entirely. With regard to the Motion of which I have given notice, as to the suspension of the 12 o'clock Rule, in putting that Motion on the Paper I desired again to consult the convenience of hon. Members. It is sometimes exceedingly inconvenient that we should be confined to 10 or 15 minutes at the conclusion of a speech. But I hope it will not be necessary to prolong the debate much after, or even up to, the hour of 12 o'clock. But in order that any Member who may be speaking at 359 that time may not be forced to come to an abrupt conclusion, I hope the House will accept my Motion.

§ (4.45.) MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
The right hon. Gentleman has stated the case fairly to the House. I, for my part, recollect miscarriages of this sort in former times. I have known cases where Members of the Government have been sharply attacked for lapses of this kind. I have thought it hard, and suffered under it, and I should be sorry to follow such a precedent on this occasion. I think the gentlemen whose business it is to look after the attendance of Members discharge their duty to the best of their ability, and, so far as we are entitled to speak, give general satisfaction. I may say the same of the gentlemen sitting at the Table, who have to discharge duties in circumstances of difficulty; and we all feel very much indebted to them for the ability and impartiality with which they discharge their duty. At the same time, however, I must say, looking to the conversation we have had this evening, that my mind is not without uneasiness with regard to its purport. It appears to me that there is a call for some further inquiry and consideration into the matter. Some important questions are raised which I think it would be well should be definitely settled—for instance, in regard to the question whether a notice can be received by the clerk at the Table after the House has ceased to sit. It appears to me that whatever is done in that respect ought to be done in accordance with some rule which shall be generally made known to the House. I do not question your ruling, Sir, especially with regard to the special and exclusive rights of the Government in respect to making Motions at certain times for the purpose of regulating the business of the House. At the same time, I think it would be very desirable that these rights should be carefully defined. There is nothing, it would appear, if this were to be taken as a precedent, to prevent the Government from giving notice at the end of a Tuesday evening that at the beginning of the Wednesday sitting they would move the setting aside of private Members' notices in order to take business of their own which might be low down on the list of Orders. I do not say that this would be done; bat it ought not to be 360 within the power of the Government. I hope that steps may be taken to place these matters on a clearer footing than they now stand. With respect to the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman for to-night, I think they are perfectly fair. For my own part, I had hoped up to a certain time that we might conclude the whole of this matter to-night. With regard to the other Amendments on the Paper, I may perhaps be allowed to say that one or two of them rather appear to have been placed on the Paper with a view of exhibiting the public capacity and ability of those who drew them; but there is on the Paper one Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings), which is material, and which presents the subject in a light totally different from that presented either by the original Motion or by my Amendment. I am therefore glad that the right hon. Gentleman is willing to leave it open, so that if there is a desire to discuss that Amendment, as there probably may be, we shall not be deprived of the opportunity. I understand that he will not have any objection to any reasonable proposal for the separate consideration of that Amendment, which, however, so far as I can judge, need not occupy a very great deal of the time of the House.

§ *(4.51.) MR. BRADLAUGH
I attach some importance to a portion of the point now before the House. I do not desire to oppose the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman; but it does seem to me that if the Motion is passed without a proviso that it is not to be regarded as a precedent, it will put upon the Journals of the House a very dangerous precedent.

§ * MR. W. H. SMITH
Perhaps I may be allowed to remark upon the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, in reference to the observations that have just fallen from the hon. Member. I think it is reasonable we should consider this question with regard to the Orders of the House; and I will place myself in communication with Mr. Speaker and the right hon. Gentleman with a view to considering whether a Rule on this subject should be added to the Orders of the House.