§ * SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington S.)I beg to ask the First Lord of the, Treasury whether, in the discussions of the new rules of procedure, any, and if so what opportunity will be afforded of submitting to the House, by way of Motion, or Amendment, or additional new rules, any proposals for the more effective despatch of public business, such as the carrying over to the next session Bills which have been read a second time and have reached the Committee or some subsequent stage, in lieu of the present dilatory practice of commencing de novo by reintroducing such Bills, such as the allocation, by a Committee of the House, of a specified time to the consideration of particular measures.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI am very loth to deal with this question. It occurs to me that it is more a question for Mr. Speaker, more a question of order, and it is for Mr. Speaker to make a statement on it. My impression is—if the hon. Gentleman insists on my giving an answer—that it would not be possible for hon. Gentlemen to move suggestions for rules of their own, in addition to those which the Government propose; nor do I believe it would be possible for them to suggest Amendments to existing rules unless those Amendments were relevant to Amendments which we propose. That, I believe, is the state of the case. The hon. Gentleman must not take that as being—what I have no right to give—an authoritative decision.
§ * SIR ALBERT ROLLITI thank the right hon. Gentleman for that information. Perhaps he will enable us to form our own judgment by saying, whether he intends that the Second Reading debate on the rules should be preceded by any such Motion as that they be considered.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURMy Motion is on the Paper.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)I wish to ask the First Lord whether there is not in the Foreign Office or the Library of the House, ample material to give us information as to the rules of Foreign Legislatures for the punishment of disorder and obstruction, and if so, would be direct somebody to supply the information to the House.
§ SIR JOHN BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisibility of making a précis, not too long, of the rules of procedure of important Foreign Legislatures.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not think that we ought to turn ourselves into a Committee for preparing a comparative jurisprudence of all the Assemblies or all the Legislatures who have, more or less, I framed themselves on our model. I quite admit that we have in many respects something to learn from them; but I should not have thought that we have much to learn from them in regard to these par- 204 ticular questions. I cannot say, off-hand, whether the information is in the Library or in the Foreign Office, but the Blue-book which I promised will, I think, be in the hands of Members to-day, and the hon. Member will then be able to see how far it meets his wishes.
§ MR. DILLONI shall put a Question down for to-morrow. Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the fact that in 1890 Lord Salisbury telegraphs to the agents of the Government in foreign countries to obtain information which the Committee required, and that the Committee was placed at great disadvantage because they only had telegraphic answers?
MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)There seems to be some doubt whether the debate on the procedure rules will be commenced to-morrow or Thursday. Can the right hon. Gentleman clear that up?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI have made inquiries, and I do not seem to get any further than we were on Friday night. The situation on Friday night was this:—The Government thought, and I am sure, that we ought to finish the Second Reading in the course of the present week. I said that, because I think that two days should be sufficient for a debate which will be repeated, as far as each rule is concerned, when the rules come up in detail. There will then be ample opportunity for discussing each question, though, of course, I grant that a group such as those dealing with the order of the business might be with advantage considered together. If we have a right to begin the discussion of the rules in detail this day week, it follows that, if the House is not satisfied with two days, I must take to-morrow. I have received no assurance from those qualified to give one that two days debate will be sufficient, and in the absence of one I have no course open to me except to begin the discussion to-morrow evening.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)I beg to renew the appeal so often made to the right Hon, Gentleman. I understood that in the course of Friday night it was quite arranged, in the usual friendly and confiden- 205 tia way in which such things are arranged, that the debate should not begin until Thursday, and I earnestly hope the right hon. Gentleman will not disappoint hon. Members who have formed their plans upon that supposition. I do not quite know what the right hon. Gentleman meant by saying he has a "right" to begin the detailed consideration of these rules on this day week. There is no order or regulation on the subject, and, although it may be desirable and convenient, there is certainly no law to compel it. Apart from that, and without deciding the question whether there ought to be two or three nights debate, I certainly did understand last Friday that it was understood the general discussion should not begin till Thursday.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI will not chicane with the right hon. Gentleman over the word "right." All I meant by it was, that the Government have endeavoured to treat the House fairly, and have not stood upon what is technically their right not to have a Second Reading debate, and they are entitled—[Cries of "Oh, oh."]—I can assure hon. Gentlemen that it is an irregular proceeding.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLIt was done by the Tory Party.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURMy point is this. The Government have tried to meet the House fairly, and in return, I think, we have a right to ask that no unnecessary delay shall be interposed between us and the consideration of the rules. When the right hon. Gentleman got up and said that there was a friendly understanding, I hoped he was going to add an assurance that two days debate would be considered sufficient. But I have heard nothing of that, and unless I get the assurance from the right hon. Gentleman and others authorised to speak on this point, I can go no further.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDI think the general feeling in the House is, that this debate ought not to commence before Thursday, and that the interval between this and next Thursday may be wel lspent in the further consideration of the rules. I may also express the 206 feeling of hon. Members who sit on these benches that it is unfair to ask us to enter into any agreement to conclude the debate on Friday night. I cannot for the life of me understand the right hon. Gentleman's plea that the Government have a "right" to get the debate closed on Friday night.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI withdraw the word "right."
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDI submit that they have no reason to expect such a thing. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about the concession he made to the House by allowing a Second Reading debate. But he knows there are precedents for that, which extend over far more than two nights. I would therefore earnestly urge the right hon. Gentleman not to take the debate until Thursday, and not to attempt to force a decision on Friday night. As far as I am concerned, I have no desire, and neither do I think any of my hon. friends desire, to prolong this debate unnecessarily. But it is an unfair thing to ask us in advance to pledge ourselves to consent to the ending of the debate on Friday night, whether we have been able to express our views or not. This is a position which I do not think we ought to be placed in.
§ MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)I have no right to speak for any one but myself, but may I be permitted to say I thought it was arranged with the right hon. Gentleman on Friday night that the Second Reading debate was to be taken on Thursday. I went from the House under the impression that it was settled in that way, and I earnestly hope and think it will be in the interest of business that the debate may be postponed until Thursday. I have only seen to-day, for the first time, the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman has placed on the Paper, and it may be desirable to bring forward an Amendment to that.
§ MR. ALFRED THOMAS: (Glamorganshire, E.)I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the suggestion which has fallen from one of his own followers, 207 and not begin the debate until Thursday. He knows very well that on Tuesday there is set down for discussion a question vitally affecting the people of Wales.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe hon. Gentleman who has just sat down was good enough to send me a private communication, in which, in most courteous language, he expressed the wish that Tuesday might be left for the discussion of the Motion in which he and his friends are deeply interested. I would gladly meet his views if it were in my power, but I think he will see that I am not pursuing an unreasonable course in asking that the debate on the rules should be confined to two days. I gather from the hon. Member for Waterford that he is not content with two days, and cannot agree to any such arrangement.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDNo.
§ MR. DAVID THOMASWill the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of suspending the 12 o'clock rule on Friday?
§ EARL PERCY (Kensington, S.)In view of the conflict of opinion, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of beginning the discussion of the new rules on Wednesday?
§ [No answer was returned.]