§ SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)said he wished to ask the attention of the Primo Minister to the appointment of April 3rd as the evening for the discussion of the Bill promoted by the London County Council for carrying a tramway across the river. As the House was given a promise of two full days for the discussion of the Army Estimates in Committee, could not the First Lord of the Treasury take steps to prevent the deprivation this would mean from the time allotted for discussion of the Army Estimates.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)pointed out that the question of the tramways was down for tonight, and it was postponed until April 6th in order to avoid any difficulty. It was next postponed from April 6th till April 3rd, or rather it was brought back from April 6th to April 3rd, because hon. Members opposite were going to have a dinner, and thought it would be inconvenient to attend.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he knew nothing of these prandial engagements which deflected the true course of Parliamentary business. It rested not with him to allocate the time to be occupied by private Bills, but with the Chairman of Committees, who endeavoured, and he believed he did so very evenly, to divide the time required fairly between Government time and private Members' time.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURYMight I suggest that hon. Members opposite should put off their dinner?
MAJOR SEELYappealed to the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence to ensure that the promise so solemnly given in reference to the Army Estimates discussion should be kept.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURwould not admit that in letter or spirit there had been any breach of the undertaking given in the allocation of the time at his disposal. His hon. friend the Member for Peckham was interested in the County Council Bill and desired to move an instruction to the Committee; and surely it would be possible to come to an arrangement with the promoters of the Bill? Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman could not mean to imply that he had been guilty of a breach of pledge?
§ MR. CHURCHILL (Oldham)It will be in that case.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI expressly and specifically say that nothing of the kind has occurred or should be imputed.
§ MR. CHURCHILLDoes not the right hon. Gentleman recollect that in consideration of the pledge which be gave the debate was allowed to terminate at an unexpectedly early hour? And now it appeals that the pledge will not be carried out unless some arrangement is made.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI am sorry the hon. Gentleman should make such a suggestion. Everybody in this House who gives a moment's reflection to the subject will see that it is totally unfounded. No pledge with regard to Government time ever has been understood, or could be understood, as referring to time which is not under the control of the Government. I am informed that the original date was the 6th, and that it would have suited everybody. It would have suited the promoters of the Bill, and it would have suited my hon, friend who has an instruction on the Bill. I cannot imagine why we should not adhere to April 6th.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURYWe should be perfectly willing to have the discussion on April 6th.
§ MR. CHURCHILLThe right hon. Gentleman is surely aware that if the whole of the evening of April 3rd were taken up by a private Bill, although the pledge would be kept in the letter, he 977 would have broken the pledge in the spirit.
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! This matter cannot be debated. Questions may be asked of Ministers about matters under their control, but this is a matter under the control first of the Chairman of Ways and Means, afterwards of the House. If it is understood that an alteration of the date would be convenient, it might be possible for the Chairman of Ways and Means to arrange an alteration. But it is perfectly clear that the Leader of the House has no control over the Chairman of Ways and Means.
§ MR. CHURCHILLrose to speak, but was prevented by Ministerial interruptions from making himself heard.
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! Has the hon. Member risen to a point of order?
§ MR. CHURCHILLMay I be permitted to withdraw the words "he would have broken the pledge in the spirit," which escapod from me at the moment. I should have said "it would have been broken in the spirit. "