I wish on this Clause to raise a point as to whether it would be in order to move to omit the word "Annual". I know it was ruled-a case is given in the Standing Order— on 19th April, 1911, that an Amendment to Clause 2 proposing to make the Act permanent was out of order. But Clause 1 in which the word "Annual" was used had already been passed. I want to know. whether it would be in order to move to omit the word "Annual" from Clause 1. All the Amendments that have hitherto been moved were to make the Act permanent. If I were allowed to move to omit the word "Annual", then, later on, I would move consequential Amendments by which the Act would be passed once in the lifetime of Parliament. That would affirm the general principle that the existence of the Army depended upon the will of Parliament.
The hon. and gallant Member's Amendment to omit the word "Annual" would have the effect of making the Bill a permanent one—
I understand that he proposes to insert consequential Amendments which will have the effect of making it last for the term of each Parliament. I think both of those Amendments would be inconsistent with the Preamble of the Bill and inconsistent with the Bill as it passed the House on Second Beading, which was to make it annual; and that consequently they would be out of order.
§ Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.