(2.15.) SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNER-MAN (Stirling Burghs)In the absence of any other Question, it occurs to me to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he actually intends to take on Thursday not only the Navy Estimates but also the Admiralty Vote. I would point out that it is usually considered advisable to keep over one Vote till a later period of the session, in order to afford an opportunity for discussing any other matter connected with the Navy Estimates.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF the TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)I think the general principle laid done by the right hon. Gentleman is a sound one. A demand has, however, been made for an early opportunity of discussing the Admiralty Vote, and so I have put it down. By keeping open the Report stage, however, I can subsequently put that down if a serious demand for discussion is made in many quarters of the House. I may perhaps say that as a rule I do not regard myself as at all bound, in the interests of the House, to put down Report stages unless the House desires to have a second discussion. As a rule, also, I should rather prefer to take on the allotted days Votes hitherto undiscussed, than that we should have a repetition 674 of old debates. On Friday I think it will be convenient to take the Procedure Rules, and I shall put down first the Motion that the Rules already passed shall become Standing Orders. I shall not take any Rule which I believe to be of a controversial character.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANMay I be allowed to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to put down a most controversial Motion, for it affords an opportunity of reviewing the whole scheme.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURWhile it is undoubtedly true that a general survey of the Rules proposed to be made Standing Orders would be quite proper on such a Motion, yet some of the most important changes in procedure have not been made in new Orders, but as Amendments to old Standing Orders, and those will not come under discussion.
§ MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.)I would suggest that the Orders passed should remain Sessional Orders until they have been put to a greater test of experience. Surely that would be a course attended with less inconvenience.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)I wish to appeal to the Leader of the House not to take on Friday the Motion for making Sessional Orders Standing Orders, which surely ought to come at the end of our discussions on procedure. I do not see what additional advantage is to be gained by now converting these Sessional Orders into Standing Orders.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)There is also the advantage that by delaying this Motion we shall gain experience in the working of the new Rules.
§ * MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! There is no Question before the House.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI will fully consider the appeals that have been made.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANWhen will the Budget be taken?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThat, I think, must depend on other things. It would be a very inconvenient course to take to discuss the Budget while other things are in the balance.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)Do I understand that the further consideration of the Finance Bill is indefinitely postponed? My right hon. friend, before the recess, mentioned a day, and said that the Bill would be persevered with de die in diem; and yesterday he spoke of Friday as the earliest day. Is it now to be indefinitely postponed?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI think the whole House agrees with the statement I laid down as to the proper course to be pursued, and I really do not know what my right hon. friend gains by raising the subject.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)If the right hon. Gentleman has any difficulty in disposing of next Friday, I would suggest that he devote it to the Irish Land Bill.