Captain BENNI ventured yesterday, Mr. Speaker, to bring to your notice a point of Order touching the Resolution headed New Import Duties, and in accordance with your permission, I beg to put the point to you again. May I draw your attention to the Motion which stands on the Order Paper. Perhaps it will state the case better if I simply read the Resolution. It is as follows:
That this House declines to consider a composite Resolution which is a breach of established constitutional and Parliamentary usage, and groups together under a single head disconnected proposals for the imposition of a series of duties from which the country is at present exempt.The points I put to you yesterday were, first, that the practice of the House requires a separate Question to be put for each separate tax; secondly, that that has been upheld by recent rulings, notably a ruling by Mr. Speaker Lowther in 1916; thirdly, that this Resolution is an infringement of the undoubted rights of Parliament. In those circumstances, I submit to you that you should permit my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) to move this Motion to recommit the Resolution to the Committee of Ways and Means when the Resolution is reported.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThere seem to be two questions put in one. With regard to the Motion standing on the Order Paper, which is in the form of a reasoned Amendment, that is not in order, and cannot be entertained. With regard to the question of a Motion to recommit, do I understand the hon. and gallant Member—
Captain BENNYes. Having been informed by you, Sir that this Motion cannot be taken, I now proceed to ask whether, when the New Import Duties Resolution comes up, I may move, that it be recommitted to the Committee of Ways and Means.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI understand that the hon. and gallant Member asks me for the 974 reasons which have been set forward, that is to say, his claim that the form of the Resolution is unusual, and perhaps wrong, that he may have an opportunity of raising that point by means of a Motion to recommit the Resolution to the Committee of Ways and Means.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is a long time since there was any Motion to recommit a Ways and Means Resolution, and I had some hesitation in considering the point put to me by the hon. and gallant Member, but if this be treated, as I think it ought to be, as a quite exceptional case of a form of Resolution, seeing that it speaks of reviving a duty, then I think I ought to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the opportunity of moving, shortly, the recommittal of the Resolution, in order that he may raise that point on the Floor of the House.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEI would like to ask your ruling and guidance, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Amendments to the Third Resolution appearing in the name of myself and others. It will be evident that, if you rule strictly that no subject is relevant to the discussion of one of these Amendments except the precise articles mentioned in the Amendment, there will, necessarily, be considerable repetition in discussing the consecutive Amendments. I suggest to you that, perhaps, you may see your way to allow a wider discussion on the first of these Amendments, in that way possibly shortening the demand on the time of the House.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI understand from representations which have reached me that there is a desire in the House for a wider discussion than is possible on any one of these Amendments. In the absence of an agreement with the House, I should be bound to apply the usual strict ruling with regard to Amendments. But I recognise that what is asked might be for the general convenience of the House, and, if the House so wish, I shall be agreeable to allowing a general Debate on these so-called McKenna Duties on the first Amendment, with an opportunity, of course, for Divisions on the three sub 975 sequent groups of articles, reserving at the same time the further Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Span Valley (Sir J. Simon). May I take it that that is agreeable to the House? [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed" !] Then, in reply to the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), I should propose to follow that procedure, allowing the wider discussion on the first Amendment, Divisions only being taken on the subsequent similar ones.
§ Sir JOHN MARRIOTTWithout any further Debate?
§ Mr. SPEAKERYes.