§ SIR. W. HARCOURTI rise for the purpose of submitting to you, Sir, a question upon which I am sure the House will desire your guidance. Upon the Allotments Bill there are various Instructions to be moved, and upon the first Instruction the right hon. Gentle- 19 man the President of the Local Government Board has an Amendment in a form which is quite new to the practice of the House. The acceptance of that Amendment by the House clearly would amount to a declaration that upon this Bill there should be no Instruction. It is, in fact, a new form of Parliamentary Closure. If it were to be adopted, it would in effect establish a closure by a side wind without any discussion in this House. It is quite plain also that it would shut out, as it is intended to shut out, from debate all the subsequent Instructions which appear on the Paper. I say nothing in regard to this particular Bill, but it may well be in other instances that the first Instruction is not the most important when proposed to be moved, and, therefore, any hon. Member by moving a trivial Instruction might enable a Government commanding a majority to prevent practically any Bill they may introduce from being enlarged beyond the scope of the original Bill. Without imputing any bad motive, I quite understand the circumstances which have disposed the right hon. Gentleman to meditate this closure. There are a great number of Instructions on the Bill, and anybody who has been for a number of years in this Assembly will be aware that when you endeavour to shut out discussion in one form it is likely to arise in another, and no doubt the restriction on Debates in Committee has led to the great multiplicity of Instructions. In regard to these Instructions, I wish to point out that the last of them stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), who proposes to incorporate with the Bill the clauses of the Allotments Act Amendment Bill. I wish to know from Mr. Speaker whether it is in accordance with the practice of this House, and the spirit of its discussions, that forms of amendment should be used which would absolutely preclude the bringing on of subsequent Instructions. I put the question subject to the express opinion that there ought to be only a moderate use made of the right of moving Instructions.
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe House is indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for having called attention to this matter. No doubt the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. 20 Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board is not out of order. It resembles the Motion familiar to the House that the House do pass to the Orders of the Day, by which the House disembarrasses itself of matter which it does not wish to pass judgment on, and proceeds to its appointed business. The Motion, I acknowledge, is prima facie to be regarded with some suspicion as a form of closure, but, on the other hand, I must call the attention of the House to the fact that there are a great number of Instructions on the Paper, more than one, I think, being in the name of the same hon. Member. This is the first Session, I think, that this practice has been extensively adopted, and there are two other Bills in regard to which notices of a still larger number of Instructions have been given. In my opinion, the House ought to take notice of this. The new rule that the Speaker should leave the chair without question being put would obviously be somewhat modified, if not robbed altogether of force, if a great number of Instructions are put down so as to prevent the Speaker from leaving the Chair—Instructions which, in the case before us, might occupy the House for several Sittings; and if one hon. Member is to be entitled to put down more than one Instruction in his name it gives him a greater right of speaking than he has on the Second Reading of the Bill itself. I only wish to put the matter as fairly as I can in both aspects, because there are inconveniences on both sides. I quite admit that the Motion standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman would, if carried, exclude every Instruction on the Paper, some of them of importance, which the House might very properly wish to discuss. I imagine the right hon. Gentleman put down his Motion as a protest against the growing abuse of the rights of hon. Gentlemen. I am not for a moment imputing any blame to any individual hon. Member, but the collective result of all these Instructions is practically to defeat the meaning and spirit of the Standing Order. I would much rather this matter were arranged by compromise than that it should come before me to decide as a point of order. The Instruction standing in the name of 21 the Member for the Rugby Division (Mr. Cobb) is in order; but other Instructions in the names of the Members for the Ashburton Division (Mr. Seale-Hayne), the Eye Division (Mr. F. Stevenson), the Lichfield Division (Sir J. Swinburne), and Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) are mandatory, and therefore out of order, or otherwise irregular.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)Perhaps I may be allowed to explain that I did not put down the Instruction which stands in my name in the belief that it was in any way out of order; but I thought it was necessary, if possible, to include some of the provisions of another and a very important measure.
§ *MR. W. H. SMITHThe Government had no option, as it appeared to them, but to meet what was obviously, from their point of view, an endeavour to smother the Bill. [Cries of "No!"] Well, I will say a new effort by which the further progress of the Bill would be impeded. But I should be exceedingly glad to meet the suggestion which has been thrown put by the Chair and to endeavour to arrive at some understanding which would facilitate the progress of the measure. If hon. Members would proceed with the first Instruction which is ruled to be in order we could arrive, in the course of an afternoon, at an understanding by which the Speaker would be able to leave the Chair and the House go into Committee. We should then be in a position to make progress with the Bill, and it would not be necessary for my right hon. Friend to move the Amendment of which he has given notice. Her Majesty's Government are bound to retain in their hands the power to press forward a measure which they deem to be necessary when it is met by proposals which are altogether unprecedented, and the effect of which undoubtedly would be practically to smother the measure.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYIf the attempt of the President of the Local Government Board to choke off opposition is successful will it not still be open to hon. Members to move Amendments in Committee?
§ MR. E. ROBERTSON (Dundee)I would submit as a point of order that the Amendment which the President of the Local Government Board proposes 22 to move is not a regular Amendment at all. The right hon. Gentleman proposes an Amendment, as I understand, by which the House declines to widen the scope of the Bill; and I would ask whether such an Amendment is regular?
§ *MR. SPEAKERIn past times it was an old-established practice to move that the House should pass to the other-Orders of the Day.
§ *MR. SEALE-HAYNE (Devon, Ashburton)Reference has been made to the fact that there are two Motions on the Paper in my name. Perhaps I may be allowed to explain that after I had given notice of an Instruction in the regular way, the right hon. Gentleman gave notice of his Motion declining to extend the scope of the Bill; and the further Motion which appears in my name has reference to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.
§ *MR. SPEAKERAs I understand the hon. Member's Amendment to the Amendment of the President of the Loca Government Board, it is to make an exception in favour of his own Instruction; but I have already pointed out that the Instruction itself is out of order. It is impossible, therefore, to move an Amendment with a view of bringing in an Instruction which is out of order.