BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. (Hansard, 20 July 1936)

§ LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE:

My Lords, before the commencement of business, may I be allowed to put a question to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House of which I have given private notice on a matter of procedure. I apologise to him for having given him such short notice, but I waited until this morning's post in order to see whether I should have any reply from the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who has put down a Motion for next Thursday superseding a Motion of mine on the subject of the League of Nations put down for the following Wednesday, July 29. Although I had written to the noble Earl in the middle of last week and had telegraphed, reply paid, to him, he has made no acknowledgment or reply at all. I therefore find myself obliged to ask this Question of which I have informed him I had given notice to-day: To ask the Leader of the House whether there is any protection for a Peer who places a Motion on the Order Paper and at a subsequent date is superseded by another Peer placing on the Order Paper a Motion on the same subject but for an earlier date, thereby obliging the former to withdraw his Motion; and whether in the absence of any Standing Order governing such procedure and the inability of the Clerk of the Parliaments to refuse any Motion sent to him, it is not the usual practice of this House for Peers to extend sufficient courtesy to one another in order that by private correspondence and mutual accommodation, and having consulted the convenience of the Government, such confusion may be avoided.

§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX)

My Lords, I have noticed myself, and my attention has also been drawn by several noble Lords to the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has recently given Notice of a Motion on the subject of the amendment of the Covenant of the League of Nations which stands in very close relationship to the Motion which has been on the 4 Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for some considerable time now, and for a date—Wednesday, July 29—the convenience of which to His Majesty's Government the noble Lord opposite was courteous enough to ascertain from me before appointing it. I understand, although of course a sudden emergency may necessitate a readily understandable departure from the practice, that it is the custom of your Lordships as far as practicable to avoid anticipating the debate on another noble Lord's Motion, particularly if it stands for discussion within a reasonable period of time. I have endeavoured, through the usual channels, to place myself in communication with Lord Mansfield, with the object of seeking his agreement to the postponement of his Motion until the date of the Motion originally proposed by the noble Lord opposite, but I regret to say that the noble Earl does not see his way—I understand that it would not be convenient for him to attend your Lordships' House on Wednesday, the 29th—to accept my proposal.

In all the circumstances therefore—and noble Lords will understand that Lord Mansfield has, I am sure quite unintentionally, placed me in a position of some difficulty, seeing that no plea of urgency can be put forward in the present instance to compel or to justify the forestalment of the long promised debate on Lord Ponsonby's Motion—I hope your Lordships will agree with the course which I propose we should take in relation to the Motion which is down for discussion on Thursday next. While we shall listen with interest, and I am sure with profit, to what the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, will have to urge in favour of the adoption of his Resolution, I should think that with your Lordships' permission the more convenient course would be to reserve the answer of His Majesty's Government until the following Wednesday, when the debate on Lord Ponsonby's Motion will afford an ample opportunity, under all the conditions that I have mentioned, for the general discussion of the subject. In this way I hope I shall be able to arrange not only to meet the convenience of Lord Mansfield, but also to satisfy the prior claim which I feel that Lord Ponsonby has established for the discussion of his Motion.