§ MR. DUNCOMBE (Cumberland, Egremont)I beg to ask the First Lord of th9 Treasury whether his attention has been called to a notice now on the Paper respecting the inconvenience and expense which result from the practice of not considering Private Business on the day when it is put down for consideration by Order of the House; and whether he is prepared to make any suggestion which will insure the business being taken on the day so appointed?
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYI have to say I do not think it would be possible for us to contemplate any discussion of the Standing Orders in the course of the present Session. In addition to that I would remind the honourable Member that if a Private Measure has been deferred by order to a certain date, and it is deferred again, that further postponement can only be made by agreement with the parties. Therefore, if it causes expense, the parties are themselves primarily responsible.
§ MR. GALLOWAY (Manchester, S.W.)I beg to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, in the event of a Private Bill being put down by Order of the House, and the promoters and opponents of the Bill desire to make a change, it is in the power of any Member to challenge that alteration and take the sense of the House on the Question?
§ MR. SPEAKERIf a private Bill is set down by Order it stands as the Order of the House for that day. Usually, when it is postponed, it is postponed by agreement. At the same time, when the question is put from the Chair that it be ordered for "Thursday," or "the 20th," or whatever date may be arranged, it is for the House to come to a decision as on any other question.