HL Deb 08 March 1869 vol 194 cc799-800
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

wished to know, Whether the noble Earl (Earl Granville), could fix any day for moving the appointment of the Joint Committee to consider the best mode of transacting the Public Business, to which reference was made last week?

EARL GRANVILLE

said, he would answer the noble Marquess's Question to-morrow.

LORD REDESDALE

said, he had stated the other night, and was still of opinion, that the object in view could be better carried out by a Standing Order than by a Bill, and he had therefore prepared a draft of a Standing Order, which he should be happy to submit to their Lordships. It would carry out the noble Marquess's intentions, though in a somewhat different manner. He thought it desirable that the resumption of a Bill should commence in the House where it had been originally introduced, and what he proposed was that it should be competent for any Member of the House, not later than ten days after the meeting of Parliament, to give not less than a week's nor more than a fortnight's Notice of a Motion, to suspend the Standing Orders in relation to any Public Bill which shall have passed that House, and not have been rejected by the other during the previous Session; and if that Motion be agreed to, that afterwards the Question that such Bill do pass shall be put and declared to be carried without further debate being allowed. The result of such a Motion would be that the Bill would be sent up to their Lordships, or sent down to the Commons, as the case might be, to be dealt with as if it had passed through the usual stages; it being provided that it should be returned to the other House, whether it had been amended or not, in order that that House might retain its hold of the Bill. The Bill would thus be taken up at the commencement of the Session, and each House would have reserved to it its proper jurisdiction. To proceed by Standing Orders would allow more freedom than if the matter was regulated by statute.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, he found on inquiry, that a Bill could not be formally referred to a Joint Committee unless it had been before both Houses; but he had no doubt the Joint Committee, if one should be appointed, would nevertheless, give as much consideration to the measure as if it had been formally referred to them.

THE EARL OF DERBY

said, he had received a communication from the noble Viscount (Viscount Eversley), the late Speaker of the House of Commons, suggesting a plan by which the object in view could be carried out by a Standing Order with the consent of both Houses. He thought it would be better to take no action in the matter until the Members of the Government in this House had had an opportunity of conferring with their Colleagues as to what plan was likely to prove acceptable to both Houses; and he hoped, therefore, the noble Marquess and the noble Lord, the Chairman of Committees, would not at present press their proposals. His noble Friend (Viscount Eversley), did not wish to bring forward his scheme formally, but it might, together with that of the noble Lord, be placed in the hands of the Government, that they might confer as to how the object in view could be best attained.