BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY). (Hansard, 30 January 1902)

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
pointed out to the First Lord of the Treasury that this Resolution, if passed as it stood, would become a Sessional Order. He thought that was hardly what the right hon. Gentleman desired. He imagined that what the First Lord wanted was the opportunity of putting down Supply on Friday until the new rules he proposed were passed and enabled him to take Supply on Thursday. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to make it a Sessional Order. Inconvenience would arise from passing the Resolution in its present form and making it a Sessional Order, because the new rules would come into operation, and it would be necessary to bring in another Resolution to rescind the Sessional Order, and consequently the right hon. Gentleman would, as it were, have an inconvenient obstacle in the way to get rid of, before bringing the new rules into force. He (Mr. Bowles) suggested the insertion of words limiting the Resolution to the time during which the rule would be in operation. He proposed after the word "that" to introduce the words "until the House shall otherwise order."

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I accept that.

§ (6.28.) MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)
asked the First Lord of the Treasury the exact meaning he attached to the words. He understood the right hon. Gentleman only wished the proposal to apply until the procedure rules had 1380 been disposed of. If the right hon. Gentleman intended it to apply to the whole of the session, he submitted that the hon. Member for King's Lynn had got nothing at all by the acceptance of his Amendment. The House would never order unless the right hon. Gentleman ordered the House, so that by accepting the Amendment he was giving nothing away at all. He proposed that the words proposed by the hon. Member for King's Lynn should be left out, and that the following words should be added at the end of the resolution "until the consideration of the new procedure rules have been completed." The House ought not to give away something to-night which might affect the discussions of the new procedure rules. He suggested that the right hon. gentleman ought not to determine this question for the whole of the session, or to take the Motion in regard to Standing Order 56 until the new rules of procedure were complete.

§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E)
There is one question I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman. Would his proposal as now moved enable him to put down Supply for Tuesday next?

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I confess that I thought I had given a distinct understanding that I do not propose to take Supply on Tuesday next. The case stands thus. I did not mention in that very long speech I made just now, but I do propose—as hon. Members will see if they have the proposed new Standing Orders and look at the last but one on page 8—I propose to make the rule general as regards Supply, and that, I think, will be in accordance with general convenience. In any case I do not think that the suggestion of the hon. Member is really very practical. What I mean to do is this. There is a whole group of rules dealing with the arrangement of business; but these are so connected and interlaced, that none of them should, I think, come fnto operation until the whole of them have been dealt with. But directly they are passed they should at once come into 1381 operation, and Members should have their full right over Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and the Supply rule would come into operation for Thursday. Therefore, I think the hon. Member will be delaying too long if he waits until we have disposed of all the rules. If we pass this block of rules, a resolution would give assent to this block and terminate a temporary arrangement.