§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYMay I ask your ruling, Sir, in reference to what may or may not be raised in Committee of Supply? On the 7th May the Prime Minister, in answer to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), said that he would welcome a Resolution passed in this House similar to that which was passed by the American Senate with regard to the further limitation of naval armaments, and he used these words:
I should be very glad to do so"—that is to give an opportunity of passing a Resolution—and perhaps an opportunity will be found in the course of the Estimates or something which will, at any rate, amount to that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1924; col. 427, Vol. 173.]On last Thursday, in Committee, I raised this matter, and the Chairman said that the Naval Votes were being discussed and the first question which was to be put dealt with personnel. Then the Lord Privy Seal said that, although the word "Estimates" had been used, he considered that the Foreign Office Vote was more suitable. I would like to ask if it is in these days considered constitutional to pass a Resolution in Committee of Supply, or whether it is in accordance with the modern practice of the House to move a Resolution in Committee of Supply?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat raises a question for the Chairman of the Committee, but I think it may be stated that the practice of moving Resolutions in Committee of Supply has long since fallen into abeyance. It is a very long period since there has been any procedure of that kind, but it is not for me to interpret either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House.