Without order in the House no worthwhile debate can take place. It is the task of the person chairing the debate—the Speaker or one of their deputies—to enforce the rules of the House and maintain order. The Chair has a certain amount of discretion in interpreting the rules, and the strictness with which they enforce them varies, depending on the situation. It is often less disruptive to the flow of debate to ignore a minor infringement.
Points of order. The Chair then responds to and may rule on the matter. Content of debate. Restrictions to ensure debate is relevant. Restrictions to maintain order. Restriction to avoid prejudicing the course of justice. Programming of debate. More information about programming the business of the House can be found in Infosheets No. Length of speeches. Time limits are imposed by the standing orders, and vary from 5 to 30 minutes. In addition, there is provision for a period of 90 second statements in the House each sitting day and in the Federation Chamber on Mondays, and for a period of 3 minute statements in the Federation Chamber each day it meets.
Who can speak—allocation of the call. Occupants of the Chair follow the tradition of alternating the call between government and opposition Members, leaving reasonable opportunities for non-aligned members and minor parties.
Parties in coalition share the call in proportion to their numbers. The Chair also usually gives priority to the Prime Minister, Ministers except when intending to speak in reply and thus close debate and party leaders and deputy leaders over the other Members of their respective parties. To assist the Chair a list of intending speakers is supplied by the party whips.
The Chair usually follows the list, but does not have to do so. The general rule is that each Member is allowed to speak only once on each question before the Chair. As an amendment results in a new question being put from the Chair, a Member who has already spoken to a motion may also speak on the amendment. Movers of motions may speak again in reply to sum up the arguments at the end of a debate. During the consideration in detail stage of bills when the bills may be amended Members may speak as many times as they wish.
Interruptions to Members speaking. Technically all interjections are out of order. However, in practice the Chair often deliberately does not take notice of interjections if they do not obviously upset the Member speaking or disrupt the flow of their speech. The exception is during the consideration in detail stage of a bill because the time limit is only 5 minutes, so Members do not have to wait long for an opportunity to ask a question.
Ending the debate. The most common way in which a debate ends is when no more Members rise to speak. Usually the party whips, after assessing the interest in the issue among their party Members, negotiate the number of Members who will speak on a particular motion.
The Member who moved the motion normally responds. No one else is allowed to speak after the mover has replied and the question is put to the vote. Cutting debate short. Since permission has been given to ring the bells at certain appointed hours of service, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that they would still be an effective warning if they were rung, say, in the middle of the night? The significance of invasion no longer attaches to the ringing of bells.
Noticed a typo? Moore Will my right hon. Thorne Is the Prime Minister anticipating an invasion between now and the next birthday of Hitler? Austin Hopkinson How can the news possibly leak out when it is an offence to spread alarm and despondency?
Suppose Germans had descended on the roof of South Africa House, what help would it be to us at Westminster or Lambeth if the bells of the parish church were rung?
Or if the Germans landed in the back gardens of some street in the East End of London, what help would it give if the bells of St. Matthew's were rung? It may, perhaps, be retorted that I am giving a caricature of all this; that it was never intended that these bells should be rung in towns as a warning but should only be rung in the country. Very well then, why ban the ringing of the bells of the town churches?
Let the bells of those churches which are in the towns be rung. Here, of course, the conditions are different. Most country people know the boundaries of their parishes. They know the brook, or the field, or the wood which separates them from the neighbouring parish. Often they look upon those living in a neighbouring parish as foreigners, and, possibly, as a rather inferior class of people.
But they do know their own parish boundaries. There is no difficulty over that. But in many cases these country churches have bells which are by no means strong and which cannot be heard at any considerable distance.
Many of these parishes cover very large areas; often there are valleys and hills in them, and sometimes, of course, the wind may be in the wrong direction. The result will be that if these bells are meant to put people on the alert—and no one seems to be quite clear why the bells should be rung, and what the response to them should be—that result would not always be achieved. In many of these parishes a number of people would go on working away in the fields in complete confidence without hearing the slightest sound from the bells which are supposed to give them warning of danger.
There are numerous parishes where the churches have bells which can easily be heard over a considerable distance. But surely those bells can be rung in a different way when a warning is to be given. In the Middle Ages church bells were often rung to give warning of the approach of an invader, and, down to much later times, to give warning of fire in the town or village in which the church was situated. The bells can be clashed or clanged in a quite unmistakable way.
No one in the country could possibly confuse the ringing of the bells for an alarm with the ordinary ringing for Divine Service if this was done. I do not know if the noble Lord who is to reply on behalf of the Government is himself a bell-ringer.
But if he has any doubt about this point, and he is not a bell-ringer himself, I venture to say that if he tried to ring the bell of the nearest parish church the noise that the bell would make would strike consternation into the hearts of all who heard it, and no one would mistake the result of his efforts for ordinary bell-ringing.
I ask him, in the first place, if possible, to tell us that they are going to lift the ban entirely from all these bells. The ban, I would point out, could be put on again very promptly; a few hours' notice given by means of the wireless would be all that would be necessary. At any rate, I suggest that the ban might be lifted for a time. If it is not possible for the noble Lord to tell us that, then I would ask the War Office, or whoever it is who is responsible, to lift the ban so far as it affects the town churches and to allow the bells in the country to be rung on Sundays or on the occasions of great festivals.
At the same time that this permission was given, there could go out an order saying that the bells were not to be clashed or clanged except when required for warning purposes. If the very worst comes to the worst—I do not want to put this House to the trouble of a Division—and if the noble Lord cannot give me those assurances, I hope he will give an assurance that in the light of these facts, and in the light of what I have no doubt other members of your Lordships' House will say in this debate, the whole matter will be most carefully reconsidered.
The men who used to ring them are now, in many cases, serving their country in the Forces. Nevertheless, I am quite certain that, somehow or other, most of the church bells would be rung on Sundays.
People would be found who can ring bells, and there are many of the soldiers stationed in our villages, who would be very glad to ring the bells there just as they were accustomed to ring them in their own home districts. I hope the noble Lord will give us an answer which will show that very soon it will be impossible for the enemy to say that he has, at any rate, silenced our bells. I hope the noble Lord will give us an answer which will mean that the bells will once again be able to ring forth their message of faith and hope through the length and breadth of the country.
I beg to move. My Lords, the most reverend Prelate asked me to support this Motion, knowing my personal interest in the matter. I have repeatedly urged that these bells should be rung again, and I submit that the most reverend Prelate has made out an unanswerable case. In regard to one thing which he has said, I believe that I can comfort him and at the same time challenge the noble Lord who is to reply on behalf of the Government.
I am not sure but I believe twat the noble Lord who represents the War Office in this House is going to reply. I have something to say which I think will throw a light on this matter. The most reverend Prelate said that, of course, if it could be shown that there was some real military reason which made it dangerous to remove the ban on the ringing of the bells he had nothing more to say, but otherwise—because he, like all the rest of us, wants them to ring again seeing that the ringing of them adds to the joy and happiness of our lives—he would press his Motion.
Since I last addressed your Lordships on the subject, I have made certain inquiries of intelligent soldiers occupying high positions, and I say definitely—and in doing so I challenge contradiction—that to rely seriously on church bells as a means of giving warning would not only be not an advantage but would he a positive danger, as matters stand.
If the most reverend Prelate's Motion he accepted the result will be to add to the security of this country instead of diminishing it. I think I can make good my case, In the course of conversation with an intelligent soldier I said to him: "We are all puzzled about this question of the ringing of church bells.
For be it observed. The first is that you must know whence that warning emanated; secondly, you must know that the means of giving the warning are in good order, In the case of church bells, neither of these conditions is fulfilled. If I am to be asked to regard this as a serious matter, then I must ask that all the 12, churches shall be properly guarded by the military, in order to ensure at all moments that the bells are not rung by Fifth Columnists or reckless people.
Secondly, I must be given authority to put those 12, belfries in order. I do not know what action the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, is going to take in this matter, but I think I am entitled to make a challenge to him as Leader of the House.
If what I have said is true—if no sound military opinion can be found to say that we ought to rely upon church bells as a warning—I think that we ought to be told.
If it is alleged that there is some sound military opinion which says that we should rely upon church bells as a warning, then let us be told the name and rank of the military officer who says: "We desire to rely on church bells as a warning.
Nobody who considers the matter can possibly regard this as a sensible method of giving warning of the enemy's approach, unless the steps which were described to me are taken to ensure that it shall be efficient. Imagine the enemy arriving, and it being said that the church bells must be rung. You will first have to ask whether the Germans have fulfilled the necessary conditions, because I am told that there are three or four different conditions which must be fulfilled before the bells are rung.
Finally, when the military Commander gives the order for the bells to be rung, imagine the fantastic moment when the man runs to the belfry, pulls at the rope, and down comes the bell and cracks his head. Are we going on playing this childish opera bouffe , and thus robbing ourselves of a certain measure of pleasure and satisfaction?
0コメント