§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Message [28th March], 'That it is desirable that the Professional Accountants Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament,' be now considered."
§ That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Resolution.—[Mr. Gulland.]
§ Sir F. BANBURYI do not know what this means. I may be wrong, but in the 2548 whole course of my experience I do not remember a similar Motion being made; and, as the Government have the whole time of the House, I must ask them to put this down so that we can discuss it. No doubt it may be all right, but we must have an explanation.
§ Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury)In many cases it is done without notice at all, but to-day it has been put down with notice, and therefore more opportunity has been given for discussion than has been given before.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI do not remember such a Motion. I understand the Professional Accountants Bill is a public Bill brought in by a private Member of the House of Lords. Now, a public Bill, brought in by a private Member in the Lords, is to be submitted to a Joint Committee of the two Houses. I never remember a public Bill being brought in by a private Member and being submitted to a Committee of both Houses.
§ Mr. GULLANDI think it was done in the case of the Licensing Consolidation Bill last year, and also the Perjury Bill.
§ Sir F. BANBURYAs far as I remember those were Government Bills and Consolidation Bills. This is entirely a new thing. It seems to be introducing a new practice into our history, and I should like to know something about it.
§ Mr. GULLANDI am sorry the President of the Board of Trade is not here, but I will put it down for to-morrow.
§ Objection being taken to further proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.