MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)said he should like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question which might, perhaps, facilitate the discussion upon the Resolution which stood in his name. The question was, whether the several sub-heads would be moved separately, or whether each Resolution would be moved en bloc?
§ MR. HENRY LABOUCHERE (Northampton)asked the Speaker under what rule the Debate would be conducted? He presumed that if any hon. Member spoke that day, after the right hon. Gentleman had moved the Resolution, and the Debate was adjourned, he would, according to the strict rules of the House, have exhausted his right of speaking when the Debate was resumed. But he understood that frequently, when a discussion had taken place upon a new Standing Order, a certain amount of latitude had been allowed, and a Member had been permitted to move two Amendments, not necessarily consequential, and, in fact, to a certain extent, the Debate had been conducted much in the same way as when the House was in Committee.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member for Northampton is quite right in his description of what would be the ordinary 718 course. If any Debate takes place to day, and it is resumed on Monday, it would be treated as one Debate, and those who spoke to-day upon the general question would not, of course, be able to speak on the main question again on Monday. The hon. Gentleman is also right in saying that, on the occasion of the introduction of the New Rules, in 1887, by the late Mr. W. H. Smith, there was, with the general assent of the House, a general Debate upon the scheme which was laid before the House, and I think it would be convenient and in harmony with other precedents when new Rules of Procedure were moved, that a general Debate upon the proposed method of dealing with Supply should be permitted, if such be the pleasure of the House. There was an understanding on previous occasions that hon. Members who had spoken in that general Debate would not be prevented by having so spoken from moving or seconding Amendments. As the hon. Member says, the Debate on that occasion was treated, practically, like a Debate in Committee, with the exception that hon. Members had not the right to speak as often as they liked upon the same Amendment. Subject to that it was treated as a Bill in Committee and a Member was allowed to move more than one Amendment. But, of course, that is entirely for the House. There may be a general desire in the House to conform to the strict rules. But, if there is a general understanding, the discussion might be conducted on the lines which have been before allowed with regard to Rules of Procedure.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)As I understand, Sir, the Resolutions are to be dealt with as if they were clauses in a Bill. I mean that the preliminary discussion would be very much equivalent to a sort of Second Reading discussion, and afterwards, when we come to the Amendments they will be dealt with just as if they were clauses in a Bill, and that you can have discussions on each line and each paragraph.
§ MR. SPEAKERI think the right hon. Gentleman a little misunderstood what I said. I did not say that course would be adopted, but that it was for the House to say what should be the course. It is not for me, but for the House, to say.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked if an hon. Member might take part in the general Debate on the general proposition and afterwards speak on as many Amendments as he chose to move, or whether he was confined to one Amendment to the general proposition itself.
§ MR. SPEAKERBy the ordinary Rules of the House he may speak on the main question before the House, and afterwards, if an Amendment is moved, he may speak to that Amendment when it has been put from the Chair. According to the ordinary Rules of the House, if he had spoken on the main question he could not propose or second an Amendment, but I have already suggested how those rules might be relaxed.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYIn answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say that the manner in which the question will be put in regard to the various paragraphs of the Resolution depends, not upon the Government, but entirely upon the Chair, and I have no doubt the Chair will consult the general convenience of the House as to the manner in which the question shall be put. In regard to the other points, my own view is that a certain amount of latitude may be well allowed, provided it is not abused. ["Hear, hear!"] I should call it abuse that an hon. Gentleman should make a general speech on the Resolution as a whole, and then repeat that speech with regard to a special Amendment. [Laughter]
MR. J. LOWTHERobserved, that these Resolutions formed, in fact, several distinct Standing Orders, and he desired to know from the Speaker whether a Motion would be in order that each paragraph should be put separately from the Chair. That was to say, that each paragraph should be subject to Debate.
§ MR. SPEAKERI understand the rule of the House to be this. An hon. Member may put down a Motion in any form he likes, and it will remain in that form unless upon an appeal made to me I decide it would be embarrassing and inconvenient to the House to deal with it in that shape; otherwise, it is for hon. Members to formulate the Motions which they desire to bring before the House. It would not be in order that the House should reform a proposition put before the House by an hon. Mem- 720 ber except by the regular course of moving Amendments, and the only question is—Would it embarrass or inconvenience the House? I rather understood from the First Lord of the Treasury that he invited my opinion whether it would be so in this case. So far as I understand, it is proposed to move No. 1 as one Resolution and No. 2 as another. That is a course which does not seem to me to be one likely to be embarrassing to the House. It does not appear to me that the question is put in such a shape that it cannot be conveniently dealt with, because it will be in the option of hon. Members to move that everything after the first clause should be left out. I do not, therefore, see any reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the First Lord of the Treasury in putting down the whole Resolutions as one.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it would not be convenient that the first paragraph should be put separately from those which followed. As everybody could see, the two questions were very distinct, and they ought to be practically two Standing Orders instead of one. The Speaker having decided that the matter was one for the discretion of the Government, he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it might facilitate discussion to separate the paragraphs.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYreplied, that it was not possible for him to adopt that course for a reason the House would appreciate. In the view of the Government the two clauses hung together, and if, by any chance, the second part of the clause was defeated they should drop the first. Ho considered that no one would suffer any inconvenience from the course the Government proposed to adopt.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsuggested, as a way out of the difficulty, that the right hon. Gentleman should move clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 first, and then, if they did not pass, drop the whole thing, or, if they did pass, then he might move No. 1. [Laughter.]
§ MR. SETON-KARR (St. Helens), wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as he had postponed the consideration of the resolutions until Monday, the rights of private Members in 721 respect to notices of motion, which would be balloted for to-morrow and would commence to take effect from that day four weeks, would be respected?
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYI am not quite sure that the hon. Member quite apprehends the position. An appeal was made to me yesterday on behalf of private Members to defer the main Debate upon this resolution until Monday. I accepted that suggestion, not as a convenience to the Government, but to private Members. I stated it would probably be advantageous that I should make a preliminary statement to-day explaining the object for which we have brought forward the resolutions now on the paper. My hon. Friend has not been injured by postponing the resolutions. If the Government are fortunate enough to carry through their scheme, as I hope they will be, I am afraid the chances of any hon. Member's resolution coming on this day four weeks will be a very small one. It will not, however, be made smaller by the fact that the main Debate has been deferred until Monday.