§ MR. MELLORasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer. Whether, after this 2020 House had insisted on its disagreement to the Lords' Amendments to the Poor Law Act 1876 Amendment Bill, it would have been in accordance with the Rules of Parliament for this House to demand a free conference with the Lords regarding their Amendments to that Bill?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI believe, Sir, that it would not have been in accordance with the Rules of Parliament that this House, after having declared that it insisted upon its disagreement to the Lords' Amendments should have demanded a free conference with the Lords regarding those Amendments. I do not, of course, profess myself to be an authority on the subject; but I understood that you, Sir, the other day distinctly laid down the law upon that point. I observe that in some of the public journals there seems to be some confusion in the report of your rulings; but I apprehend I state them correctly now—that if, in the first instance, before insisting, or instead of insisting upon disagreement to the Lords' Amendments, this House had sent back the Bill with some slight Amendments of its own, it would have been possible then to have proceeded further; but that, having once insisted upon that disagreement, it became impossible afterwards for this House to demand a free conference with the Lords.