§ MR. LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether by his reply to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, yesterday, he intended to convey that Members would, when the House reassembled next year, have the same opportunity of discussing specific questions of policy and of taking the sense of the House separately on those questions that they would have if the legislative programme of the session were then set forth in a Speech from the Throne.
§ THE FIRST LORD of the TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.What I intended to convey, and what I think I said, was that there would not be a second Queen's Speech, and that I would follow out, as far as I could, the precedent started by Sir Stafford Northcote, and followed by Mr. Gladstone, which would give to hon. Members an opportunity of raising definite questions upon the programme of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean pointed out that probably the change made in the rules of the House subsequent to those precedents would necessitate some alteration. That is a matter into which I shall certainly carefully look, with the only desire to see that if any alteration is made it is not, at all events, in the direction of curtailing the privileges of hon. Member.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)It would be irregular to have any discussion, but perhaps I may put my observations in the form of a question—namely, whether the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that it is an important part of the privileges of hon. Members when the Address is under discussion that they can not only call attention to any subject to which they desire to call the attention of the House, but that they may take the opinion of the House upon it; and whether he can discover any method by which on going into Committee of Supply or on any stage of that sort a similar privilege can possibly be given to Members of the House.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURWhere the ingenuity of Sir Stafford Northcote and Mr. Gladstone failed I have not any great hopes that I shall succeed, but the matter shall be carefully considered.
§ MR. LEWISAs there seems to be some doubt as to what the procedure next year will be, I desire to ask now whether it will not be competent on the present Queen's Speech for private Members to move such amendments as are generally moved on a Queen's Speech at the commencement of a session.
§ *MR. SPEAKERNo doubt it is in order to put down such amendments.
§ MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN (Montgomery)The right hon. Gentleman said certain questions might be raised. Does that mean that no questions except those which touch upon the statement the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make could be discussed by the House?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI made no statement one way or the other; I simply referred the House to the precedents.
§ MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)Are we to understand that when the House reassembles next year a sufficient length of time will be allowed to enable Members to raise all the issues they may consider important in the interest of their constituents?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI propose to follow as nearly as possible the precedent set in 1878 and 1885. In so far as that precedent is departed from it will be 166 departed from in the direction, I hope, of giving further liberty to hon. Gentlemen; that will be my desire.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, is it not a fact that if there be no second Queen's Speech there is no possible way of giving us the same facilities of moving Amendments and of dividing upon them?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI really do not think I can add anything to the answer I have given.