§ Mr. PICKERSGILLI desire, Sir, to address to you most respectfully a question respecting a proceeding which took place on Tuesday. In the early part of the Sitting you communicated to this House a Message from the Lords suggesting that a Joint Committee of the two Houses should be appointed to consider a question of the adjustment of the financial relations between two local authorities when their areas are altered. I think I was out of the House at the moment. I was not aware that a Message, or any Message, had been communicated, and at the time nothing further was done Just before the rising of the House a Motion was moved from the Treasury Bench that the Lords' Message should be considered, and that having been adopted, my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea further proposed that this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution, and that was carried. I was actually in the House at the time, but there was some noise and confusion, as is not unusual owing to hon. Members leaving the House, and I was under the impression that it was merely a Message from the Lords that was being communicated.
I am perfectly aware that according to the ordinary practice of this House Amendments of public Bills brought from the Lords are ordered to be considered forthwith; but I submit that a Message of the nature indicated is a totally different thing, and a totally different consideration. I have referred to the authority which we usually consult, and I find that so far as the precedents are concerned they are totally different from the order or course that was taken on Tuesday night. I do not know that any harm has been done in this case, but the principle is important. It would be inconvenient that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns) should commit this House to concurrence with the Lords without the unofficial Members of this House having any knowledge of what was being done. My specific question to you, sir, is whether, when a message from the Lords is communicated requesting or suggesting that there should be a Joint Committee of the two Houses, the practice has not been that the Motion to take the Lords' Message into consideration be deferred to a future day.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI am afraid I cannot answer directly the question the hon. Member has put to me. I will simply 1246 observe that in this case no effective action has been taken by the House in agreeing to the Message which came down from the Lords. The effective action would be taken by this House when the committee is appointed and the members are nominated. That cannot be done without notice. The President of the Local Government Board will have to give notice of the names of those Members whom he proposes to form part of the Joint Committee. Then, of course, the House will have full opportunity of considering them, and if they do not approve of the setting up of the Joint Committee they will have an opportunity of placing their views on record and refusing the appointment of the Committee. Therefore no harm was done, and the rights of Members are not being injuriously affected in any way. The hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite aware that at certain times, especially towards the end of the Session, Messages came down from the Lords and are considered forthwith, without any notice, and there is no necessity for giving notice. If I had thought that the rights of Members were being in any way affected I would not have permitted the Motion to be made.