§ MR. J. B. YORKE
I wish to ask you, Sir, a Question with reference to a Motion which stands on the Paper of the House in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), which constitutes a colourable evasion, if not a breach of the Rules of this House. I take it that by the Rules of the House no Motion which has been submitted and debated, and the issue determined, can a second time be submitted to the House in the same Session of Parliament. It will be in the recollection of the House that on Monday, after two nights' debate, the subject under discussion was determined by this House. That debate was on the Motion of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands)—"That the House views with regret the great increase in the National Expenditure," and the Motion which now stands in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle on going into Committee of Supply is that—This House disapproves of the Foreign and Colonial policy of the Government, which renders necessary the increased and increasing Expenditure of the present Government.We are quite aware that a great many hon. Members, not a few of whom are sitting on the other side of the House, if not of that Party, wished to address the House upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Burnley, and I am not surprised that they should appear to rejoice in the opportunity of producing 1502 those speeches which they wished to make on a former occasion. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it is expedient that such a course as that proposed to be taken by the hon. Baronet should be tolerated by the House, inasmuch as it would not greatly tax the ingenuity of any hon. Member who wished to do so to revise the subject of the National Expenditure, and thus evade the Rule that the same question must not be twice submitted to the House during the same Session. If this, what I call colourable evasion of the Rules of the House, is allowed to be introduced, I do not see what prospect there is of our disposing of the real Business of the Session. ["Order!"] I hold that I am in Order in submitting this question for your opinion. I beg to ask you, Sir, whether the Motion of the hon. Baronet is in Order, or whether I am right in characterizing it as an evasion of the Rules of the House?
§ MR. SPEAKER
On examining the terms of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), I find that the essence of that Motion is disapproval of the foreign and Colonial policy of Her Majesty's Government. It is, no doubt, true that during the debate upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), the discussion embraced very fully the foreign and Colonial policy of the Government; at the same time, the terms of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Burnley did not specifically refer to that policy, and, therefore, technically speaking, I think it is open to the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle to challenge, as he proposes to do, the foreign and Colonial policy of the Government, the judgment of the House not having been specifically taken out on that question.