§ Mr. FRANCEI desire to ask a question in reference to the procedure of this House: Whether, in view of the three Bills which appear on the Order Paper for the first time to-day to be presented by the three Noble Lords the Members for Oxford University, the Thirsk Division of Yorkshire, and the Newton Division of Lancashire, the Motion on divorce of which I gave notice a fortnight ago, in consequence of my having been first in the ballot for private Members' Motions, can or cannot be taken to-night?
§ Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTBefore you reply to that question may I ask whether you are aware of the fact that a Procedure Committee was recently appointed specially to consider this question of Blocking Motions in consequence of the Amendment to the Address by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin, and whether you would be able to exercise your influence meanwhile with the Noble Lords to prevent them violating this desire?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University presents the Bill of which he has given notice, it will, of course, block the Motion of the hon. Member. I see the Noble Lord in his, 1197 place, and I was going to make an appeal to him not to present this Bill to-day. I would point out to him, that the object, as I understand, with which he put this notice down, was to call special attention to this particular rule—this Blocking Rule. I think he will have gained his object by what has been already done. Of course, if he persists in presenting his Bill, I am afraid, as this procedure is capable of being used both ways, that the Noble Lord will find himself and his Friends equally blocked by some Bill introduced by some hon. Member. I would respectfully suggest to the Noble Lord that it is hardly fair to deprive the hon. Member of the fruits of his good fortune, and that the labour which he has given to this particular question should be wasted.
§ Lord HUGH CECILIn reply to the appeal that has been made to me from the Chair, I have to point out that this is a matter that has been under the consideration of the House of Commons for six or seven years. The Government have been repeatedly asked whether they would be willing to modify the Rules of the House. They have given a specific answer, but they have never done anything else. I should not merely on that ground put down this Motion, but this is a matter in which I see no advantage in the particular Motion the hon. Member brings forward. It is a Motion which does not seem to me to be at all important in the public interest, and it appears to me, therefore, that my Motion is a very proper one, if hon. Members are to be able to use the Blocking Motion at all. I am told that Members have actually put clown Motions evidently designed to block Motions for Adjournment during the present Session. If that is to be the rule as used on one side, we are entitled, of course, to use it on the other side. If the Rule is to be abolished, then, as soon as the Government have made up their minds to do so, I should heartily support the Motion. But I am afraid, in the circumstances, I must persist in my intention to present the Bill.
§ Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTWhy should we be censored in this manner by persons outside of this House? Is it not an abuse of the whole procedure of the House of Commons?
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYIf the Motion were defeated, what would be the result?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not put any Question. It is one of the inconveniences which have arisen from the new Rule for the presentation of Bills. Under the old system, where a Member had to ask for leave to bring in a Bill, I have very little doubt that the House would have refused leave in a case of this sort, because it would see that the Bill was a, bogus Bill, and was only presented for the purpose of preventing the Motion coming on. In this case there is no Motion to put.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYIs it possible for the Chair to direct that to-day's Motion shall stand over until to-morrow?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI am afraid I cannot do that. I am bound under the Standing Order to allow the presentation of Bills. Certain days of the week are offered to hon. Members to present Bills, and I am bound to obey
§ Mr. FRANCEMay I respectfully call attention to the Resolution of the House of Commons of 27th March, 1907:—
That to put a Motion on the Order Paper of this House, or to introduce a Bill so as to prevent the discussion in this House of Motions for which precedence has been obtained in the ballot, or of definite matters of urgent public importance, is hurtful to the usefulness of this House and an infringement of the rights of its Members.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not quarrel with that at all. That does not set aside the Standing Order which enables hon. Members to present Bills.
§ Mr. PRINGLEAre we now to understand that the consideration of hon. Members opposite for the public interest is a hypocritical sham?
§ Mr. W. THORNEMay I ask whether it would be in order to move the suspension of this particular Bill which the Noble Lord is to present, in order to engine the Motion to come on?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat could not be done without notice.
§ Sir FREDERICK LOWMay I ask whether the Bill of which the hon. Member for Newton has given notice is in order?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat Bill would not be in order. I could not put that, because, on the face of it, that is not a Bill which could be introduced. I confine myself entirely to the first Bill.
§ Lord HUGH CECILI can assure the hon. Member opposite that I have no personal ill-will against him, and I sympathise with him. But my action is taken on 1199 purely public grounds. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am surprised to see that the Chairman of the Labour party is afraid of his own Motion. Personally, I think the other is much more worthy of consideration. I am afraid that I must persist in my Motion to present the Bill.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYMay I ask you, Sir, if you have taken steps to secure that the Bill in question is not a Bill that will have to be founded on a Committee of this House?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have no power to examine Bills before they are presented. I do not know in the least what is in it.
§ Sir HARRY VERNEYWould it be in order for the Leader of the House to move the suspension of the Noble Lord from this day's sitting?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat may become necessary some time.
Mr. RONALD M`NEILLHaving regard to the fact that shortly before the present Government came into power the Prime Minister, in a public speech, made a violent denunciation of the Blocking Rule, and announced that one of his first duties would be to remove it, would it-not be possible for the Government to give an undertaking that they will fulfil that pledge at an early date, in which case my Noble Friend might be induced to withdraw his Bill?
§ Sir RYLAND ADKINSWould I be in order in asking the Noble Lord whether this Bill is being introduced at the instance of high ecclesiastical authorities, as that might influence the acquiescence of the House?
§ Mr. SPEAKERPerhaps the Noble Lord will give an answer. He has said quite plainly that the object of the Bill is to defeat the Motion.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEHave there not been Motions obviously with an exactly similar purpose which have appeared on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) in this Session?
§ Mr. BECKIs it not the fact that four years ago the Government did introduce a Standing Order on this subject which was blocked by hon. Members opposite?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is not the question.
§ Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTWould I be in order in asking the Government to discharge the Order for the Procedure Committee in view of the extraordinary action of members of that Committee on the floor of this House?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI cannot help it.
Bill presented by Lord HUGH CECIL; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 157.]