§ MR. JOHN REDMONDMr. Speaker, I beg to ask you whether you are now in a position to give a ruling with reference to the point of procedure to which I took the liberty of calling your attention last Thursday—namely, whether it would be 897 in accordance with the rules of procedure and of precedent to take the Redistribution Resolution as one Resolution, or whether it ought not, as has been done in similar cases, to be submitted to a Committee of the House?
MR. GIBSON BOWLESMay I also ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give your ruling us to my point of order—namely, whether, when a Resolution contains various different propositions, it should not be divided, and each proposition put separately?
§ *MR. SPEAKERI have had an opportunity of taking into consideration all the points that were raised on Thursday last; and I have come to the conclusion that to offer the Resolution which stands in the name of the President of the Local Government Board and to take it in the ordinary way—that is, en bloc—after the first Amendment has been disposed of, would not afford to the House a sufficient and adequate opportunity for discussing the various matters and principles which are contained in that Resolution. I think, therefore, the Resolution ought to be divided into at least eight, and probably nine, Resolutions. When that point is reached I have further to consider whether, in taking a series of Resolutions like these, eight or nine in number, the proper procedure is that they should be taken seriatim by the House with myself in the Chair, or whether they should be referred to a Committee. It may be said that the old system of referring these Resolutions to a Committee of the Whole House is obsolete. The last time in which it was employed, I think, was about the rear 1868. But I cannot undertake myself to say that a system of that kind has become obsolete in the course of less than forty years. The question then arises—How are these Resolutions to be dealt with? The form of proposing theses Resolutions, although not obsolete, is antiquated; but I feel I am driven back when this form is adopted to follow former precedents; and, looking at almost the last precedent—the year 1867, when Mr. Disraeli introduced his Reform Resolutions, which were somewhat of this character, partly for the extension of the franchise, and partly for redistribution of seats, which numbered some thirteen, I find that the 898 procedure then adopted was to set up a Committee of the Whole House and to refer these Resolutions to that Committee, where they would, in the ordinary course, have been discussed. It so happened that on that particular occasion they were not discussed, because another method of procedure was adopted, and the principles set out in the Resolution were embodied in a Bill. But that does not concern the House on the present occasion. What really does concern the House is, what the procedure then adopted was; and the procedure was as I say, to set up a Committee and refer these Resolutions to it. [An OPPOSITION MEMBER: A Committee of the Whole House?] Yes, certainly, a Committee of the Whole House, That was the same procedure as was adopted in 1858 upon the Resolutions relating to the Government of India; and those two precedents seem to me to be strictly in force, and I cannot take upon myself to set aside those precedents on this occasion. I can only repeat what I said on Thursday as to the precedent of the Irish Church Resolutions, which I do not think is for our guidance, and so need not be considered on this occasion; for, by reason of a certain Standing Order then in existence, all matters dealing with religion were, by that Order, referred to a Committed. But, following the precedents of 1858 and 1867, my opinion is that these Resolutions ought to be divided, and, when divided, that they ought to be considered by a Committee of the Whole House.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDMay I. Sir, after that statement, ask the Prime Minister what course he proposes to ask the House to adopt to-morrow, or on subsequent days, in reference to this matter?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIt must be perfectly evident to every Member of the House who has listened to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that unless the two sides of the House come to some agreement as to the length of time to be occupied in these discussions, an agreement which, of course, in view of the pressure of other business upon us, would not involve a very large expenditure of Parliamentary 899 time, I cannot go on with them; and as no suggestion has reached me that any such agreement is likely to be considered, as, indeed, it was openly derided by the hon. Gentleman who has put the Question to me, I propose to found my course upon the same precedent as you, Mr. Speaker, have founded your ruling; and, as Mr. Disraeli in 1867 withdrew his Resolutions and proceeded with his Bill, I mean to withdraw my Resolution and proceed with my Bill.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to proceed by Bill during the present session?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUROh, no!
SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMANI would ask the right hon. Gentleman what, then, will be the course of business this week?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI propose to proceed with the Committee on the Scottish Churches Bill to-morrow and until that stage of the Bill is finished. I hope to be able to take the preliminary stages of the Naval Works Bill during the next few days, so as to take the Second Reading of that Bill on Friday.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANWhat Supply will be taken on Thursday?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIrish Supply.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThe Colonial Vote is greatly in arrears, and the right hon. Gentleman promised a day for the discussion of the new Constitution of the Transvaal.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI said that the proper time for the discussion of the Transvaal Constitution was on the Colonial Vote, and if the right hon. Gentleman desires I will put that Vote down for Thursday week.
§ MR. BUCHANANWill the right hon. Gentleman give the usual three extra days for Supply?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI think that is a very unlikely contingency.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIENMay I ask whether, as the right hon. Gentleman has withdrawn the Redistribution Resolution, he will consider the advisability of giving some of the available time to the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill.
SIR H. CAMEBELL-BANNERMANDo I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he does not propose to give the usual three extra days to Supply?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI said it was an improbable contingency; and I am sure that, if the right hon. Gentleman has listened to the passionate appeals which have been made to me with regard to the legislative projects of the Government, he would not press me for them.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANSurely the Resolution upon Redistribution being out of the way makes a difference in the prospects of Supply?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe withdrawal of that Resolution may facilitate the progress of various important Bills; but I do not think it makes it easier to find time for all the things about which I am pressed by both sides of the House.
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYWill the right hon. Gentleman now proceed with the Sale of Butter Bill?
§ [No Answer was returned.]