HC Deb 29 July 1898 vol 63 cc419-21

Ordered— That the Standing Order, 22nd July, as to suspending the proceedings on the General Power Distributing Company Bill [H.L.], be read, and rescinded. That the promoters of the General Power Distributing Company Bill [H.L.] shall have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the same Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament. That when the Bill is brought from the House of Lords in the next Session of Parliament, the agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, and so soon as one of the clerks in the Private Bill Office has certified that such deposit has been duly made, the Bill shall be read the first time, and ordered to be read a second time. That all Petitions presented in the present Session against such Bill within the time proscribed by the Rules and Orders of this House, which stood referred to the Committee on such Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in the next Session of Parliament.

Resolved— That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.

Ordered— That a Message be sent to the Lords to acquaint them therewith, and desire their concurrence."—(Mr. J. W. Lowther.)

* THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,) Cumberland, Penrith

I apologise to the House for asking it to rescind a Resolution which it only arrived at a very short time ago; but really no new matter is raised by the Motion which now stands in my name on the Paper. In the Motion which I submitted to the House on Friday last with reference to this Bill I omitted to observe that it was a Lords' Bill, and I followed a precedent which was applicable only to a House of Commons Bill. I ought certainly to have noticed that before, and I ought not to have overlooked it, but I may say that in asking the House to substitute the Motion which is now in my name on the Paper for that which was passed last week I am not asking it to do anything which is new. I am only asking its assent to a different form; the position of the parties will remain exactly the same at the beginning of next Session as it would have done had the Motion of last week been strictly in order.

MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, West)

Before the House assents to anything of the sort I should like to have an assurance that the change is only a change in the form of words, and is not a change in the substance, and that this Motion is exactly the same in effect as that adopted last Friday.

* MR. J. W. LOWTHER

I can give that assurance to the honourable Gentleman. It is merely a change of words in order to make the Motion applicable to a Lords' Bill.

SIR E. LEES (Birkenhead)

I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether there is any precedent for hanging up a Bill in this House from one Session to another.

* MR. J. W. LOWTHER

There was a precedent some time ago which is almost exactly on all fours with this. That related to several Tramway Bills in the year 1871, and the reason for delay in that case is exactly the same as the reason for delay in this case—namely, that a Joint Committee of the two Houses was appointed which occupied the greater part of the Session in investigating the matter referred to. As in that case, so in this—it is no fault of the promoters, but it is in consequence of the whole time of the Session being occupied by the investigations of the Joint Committee that the delay took place.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

I think it is rather unfortunate that one day we are asked to adopt a Motion changing a Standing Order, and a few days after we are asked to rescind it. I do trust that more care will be taken in the future, and that the House shall not be exposed to such unnecessary delay as this mistake has caused.