“Hence this statement is designed to signal what would be orderly and what would not.
“If the Government wishes to bring forward a new proposition that is neither the same nor substantially the same as that disposed of by the House on March 12 this would be entirely in order.”
He claimed to bring back the same vote would break a precedent dating back centuries.
However, in January, the Speaker was willing to break Parliamentary convention to favour Remainers.
On January 9, the Speaker of the House allowed a Government motion on the meaningful vote to be amended by former Attorney General Dominic Grieve.
The amendment meant the Government was forced to return to the Commons to explain how it intended to proceed with Brexit three days after losing its meaningful vote.
Originally the motion gave Theresa May 21 days.
However, the amendment angered Brexiteers as the amendment was made on a motion which precedent stated was unamendable.
Mr Bercow said at the time he would not be “guided by precedent”.
He said: “If we were guided only by precedent, manifestly nothing in our procedures would ever change.”
Last week Mr Bercow was grilled in the Commons by Sir Bernard Jenkin over his Brexit views.
The Brexiteer raised “concern” over “the selection of amendments” chosen by the Speaker.