MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)gave notice that, in the case of all Orders of the Day other than those standing in the name of the Government, he would move, on their being called, "That the Order be discharged."
§ * SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)said, he begged to ask Mr. Speaker whether it would be open to a Member, upon the Motion for the Adjournment, to move as an Amendment—
That it is desirable to consider the question of labour disputes with a view to a Bill for conciliation or arbitration, or the like"?
§ * MR. SPEAKERI think it would be a very unusual thing for an hon. Member who is not in charge of a Bill to move that the Order be discharged. The same object would be attained by an hon. Member objecting, while it would still be left open to the House to decide whether it would like to go on or not.
§ * SIR A. ROLLITsaid, he was anxious to know whether he could move on the Adjournment an Amendment stating the desirability of considering labour disputes with a view to arbitration and a Bill regarding that subject?
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe discussion on the Motion for the Adjournment must be strictly relevant to the Question of the Adjournment; and any importation of the question of a particular Bill, or anything approaching the details of a Bill, would he quite out of Order. No Amendment with reference to a particular Bill could be moved on the Motion for the Adjournment.
§ * SIR A. ROLLITsaid, he was not alluding to a particular Bill. He meant that, instead of passing the Motion for the Adjournment, the House should declare that it was desirable to appoint a Committee of Inquiry into the question of labour disputes, with a view to the introduction of a Bill dealing with arbitration.
§ * MR. SPEAKERNo Amendment can be moved to the Motion for the Adjournment.