§ MR. MALCOLM (Suffolk, Stowmarket)I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of taking steps to amend the Standing Orders governing Motions for the adjournment of the House in order to avoid the necessity for blocking 629 Notices, and to restore greater freedom of debate to the House of Commons.
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.In my judgment the Rule to which my hon. friend objects is undoubtedly capable of abuse, and has, no doubt, from time to time been abused. But I do not think that a simple abrogation of the Rule would do. No man who has considered the subject has come to that conclusion; nor have I ever had suggested to me any Amendment which seemed to me at once to protect the rights of the House and to carry out the intention of the Rule to which objection is raised.
§ MR. MALCOLMOn occasions when the Government move the adjournment of the House for the holidays, would my right hon. friend use his influence to have blocking Notices removed?
§ ME. A. J. BALFOURI could not give any pledge on that subject. It has always seemed to me that possibly it might be a convenient course for the House to lay down some Rule such as that which the House adopted in regard to Votes on Account. It would be understood that the debate on the Motion for the holiday adjournment at Easter and Whitsuntide should last only for a specific period—that is, for the Afternoon Sitting—that it should not be liable to Amendment or division, and that during the hours from Question time to half-past seven no Notice should be allowed to exclude any subject from debate. But I think that in that case some notice should be given of the subjects which are to be raised. I only suggest this as the sort of Amendment which might be adopted. I could not give a pledge on the subject.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)The right bon. Gentleman says that he can give no pledge, but will he address his mind to the subject and give the House an opportunity of discussing the matter? The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the state of things now is really beyond endurance, and that there is a strong feeling in all quarters of the House upon it.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESPerhaps the; Prime Minister has seen two Notices on the Blue Paper of to-day, which to my mind are abuses of the Rule. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will accord an opportunity to the House to discuss a Motion which I propose to put down, to the effect that the rule and practice of the House prohibiting a discussion of a matter previously appointed for the consideration of the House or as to which Notice of Motion has previously been given shall not apply to a Motion for an adjournment for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURMy hon. friend will at once see that he refers to an entirely different subject from that of the limitations put upon discussions on Motions for the adjournment for the holidays, which, I think, is the more important of the two. With regard to giving time for a discussion on the subject, the House is aware-that there is a great deal of business before it; and I am certainly not in a position to add to the pledge which I nave already given in regard to affording an opportunity to discuss the subject. I may add, however, that if we are happy in our progress with the discussion o; Bills now before the House I do not sea why we should not find time.