HC Deb 10 July 1908 vol 192 cc228-32
MR. SPEAKER

called upon. Mr. Asquith to move the following Resolution of which notice had been given: "That, until the adjournment for the autumn holidays, Government business be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour though, opposed; that, at the conclusion of Government business each day, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put; and that no Motions be made to bring in Bills under Standing Order No. 11."

*MR. EVELYN CECIL (Aston Manor)

rising to a point of order, said: I have a Motion down on the Paper for 31st July which proposes to discuss the undesirableness of doing the very things which the Prime Minister now wishes to do. I consider that my Motion is the more important because of the unprecedented abuse which the Government have made of the closure procedure of the House this session. In the "Manual of Procedure," issued under the high authority of the Clerk at the Table, it is stated that— A Motion must not anticipate a matter already appointed for the consideration of the House, or a Motion of which notice has been already given and not withdrawn. I imagine it will not be disputed that the Prime Minister's Motion, at any rate, anticipates the matter which I desire to discuss, and would respectfully submit that my Motion has been already appointed for the consideration of the House because it appeared on the Notice Paper on 23rd June. I moved it after eleven o'clock, it was objected to, and then on my request, you from the Chair fixed it for 31st July, I think that this part of my contention is covered by the ruling of Mr. Speaker Brand on 27th May, 1875, and there are other rulings also which seem to bear on the subject. Mr. Speaker Brand said— It is irregular to propose any Motion which anticipates discussion of a matter already appointed for consideration by the House. I should also like to submit to you, in relation to the statement in the "Manual of Procedure," that the Prime Minister's Motion anticipates my Motion, which is one of which notice has been already given and not withdrawn. It seems to me that my Motion comes precisely under these terms, for I have given notice of the Motion, it deals with a matter the Prime Minister now wishes to deal with, and I have not withdrawn my Motion. I find that Mr. Speaker Denison on 13th July, 1871, said— The hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) is not in order in introducing on the present Motion questions which would arise upon a future Motion of which notice has been given. I think the Prime Minister is bound to introduce on this Motion a subject which would properly arise on the Motion of which I have given notice, and under these circumstances I very respectfully submit to you that the Prime Minister's Motion to-day is not in order.

*MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member was kind enough to give me notice that he intended to raise this point, and I have gone as carefully into it as I can and looked through the precedents. I am clearly of opinion that one notice of Motion cannot act as a block on another notice of Motion. If so the whole business of the House would come to a standstill. Where there are two notices of Motion dealing with the same matter the fact that one stands for to-day, and the other stands for to-morrow does not prevent to-day's Motion coming on, and lam sure that the hon. Member will search the books and the records in vain to find a case of that kind. The hon. Member has called my attention to two cases in which my predecessors have laid down a rule. Dealing first with the one of 27th May, 1875, where, when a notice of Motion on the subject of strangers present at debate was brought forward, Mr. Speaker Brand said it was Ids duty to inform the House that by the rules of the House it was irregular to propose any Motion which anticipated discussion upon matters already appointed for the consideration, of the House. That I conceive to be, so far as it goes, a perfectly accurate statement of the rule against anticipation. In my opinion, the added phrases which appear in the "Manual" go really somewhat beyond the rule, as laid down from the Chair in former days. Then the hon. Member says that his Motion is in regard to a matter already appointed for the consideration of the House. There I do not agree with him. The hon. Member did not move his Motion. He rose in his place and was prepared to move it, and was going to move it, but, objection being taken, the Motion could not come on. If the hon. Member will refer to the Votes and Proceedings he will find no record whatever of the House having ever fixed the date for 31st July. The hon. Member fixed his own day. When he called out "31st July," I so informed the clerks at the Table, but if he looks at the Votes and Proceedings he will find that there is no record of his having moved the Motion, and, indeed, it could not have been put from the Chair because there was no seconder, and until a Motion is seconded, it cannot be put from the Chair. Therefore the House was never seized of it and the House has never appointed a particular day for its consideration. Therefore the Motion of the hon. Member does not come within the ruling of Mr. Speaker Brand of 27th May, 1875. With regard to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Denison of 13th July, 1871, Mr. Speaker Denison said— The hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth is not in order in introducing on the present Motion questions which would arise upon a future Motion of which notice has been given. That was clearly not an identical matter. Of course, the rule is perfectly clear that on a Motion for the adjournment, either upon a matter of urgency, or for the holidays, a matter of which notice has been given, even although it has never come before the House and no day has been appointed by the House, a matter which it is proposed to raise at some future time for debate—cannot be discussed on a Motion for adjournment. That is a well-recognised rule which has been acted upon a great many times, and that is the case to which the hon. Member refers, for he will see that the case of 13th July, 1871, was a Motion for the adjournment of the House. That is very often the case. I will not say it is of daily or weekly occurrence, but it is of monthly occurrence in this House. I hope I have made this matter clear to the House. It is perfectly clear to myself that in the case of two competing Bills dealing with, the same subject — one cannot block the other; two competing Motions dealing with the same subject—one cannot block the other; but if discussion has been entered upon on one of those Motions and a day fixed by the House, that fact would act as a block against the second one being discussed.

LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)

I would like, Mr. Speaker, to ask one or two Questions, merely for the purpose of elucidating the ruling which you have been good enough to give to the House-I do not know whether your attention has been called to a ruling of Mr. Speaker Denison of 25th June, 1871, in which he says— There is a Rule of the House that when a matter has been expressly set down for consideration no hon. Member can anticipate it by raising a discussion on the subject. That certainly would appear in its terms to cover the case raised by my hon. friend to-day. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] When a matter has been expressly set down, I submit to you, Sir, that is a reason why on Motions for adjournment under Standing Order 10 and on Motions for adjournment for holidays, no discussion has been allowed in respect of any matter in respect of which a Motion stands on the Paper of the House, and it does not matter whether any date has been fixed or whether the Motion merely stands for an early date. With regard to the question raised by my hon. friend as to 27th May, 1875, I would point out that there were then three Motions on the Paper, only one of which was moved by Lord Hartingdon, as he then was, and the other two were merely given notice of, but never entered upon. In the course of the discussion on the first Motion a difficulty arose, and it was adjourned until a particular day. Nothing was said about the other Motions, nor was the House seized of them. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker Brand said the mere fact of the existence of these Motions precluded another hon. Member from moving a Motion dealing with the same subject. I merely desire to submit this point.

*MR. SPEAKER

With regard to the first Question, I do not see that it is in any way inconsistent. The ruling there was that when a matter had been expressly set down for consideration no hon. Member could anticipate it by raising a discussion on that subject. I construe the words there in the same sense as they were construed by Mr. Speaker Brand. "A matter already appointed for consideration by the House" means by the House itself—not a Member merely naming a day. With regard to the Question arising on 27th May, 1875, there were three Motions of which Lord Hartington gave notice; and in his speech he said he proposed to deal with all three together. He made a speech covering the whole ground. It is perfectly true only one Motion was put from the Chair, and therefore it might very well be urged that the second Resolution, which had not been entered upon or discussed at all, could not operate as a block. But Mr. Speaker Brand was careful upon that occasion, I observe, to say that the three Motions, although separate, read together constituted the order of the day, and, if so, it is not for me to say my predecessor was wrong, as the facts were all before him; and I daresay he thought there was sufficient connection between the three Resolutions really to constitute them one Order.