[256:2] Ibid., 145.
[256:3] S.O. 15.
[256:4] In his excellent Recht und Technik des Englischen Parlamentarismus—the only systematic history of procedure in the House of Commons—Dr. Redlich dwells on two tendencies in the evolution of the standing orders since 1832. One of these consists in giving to the ministry an ever greater control over the time, and hence over the activity, of the House; the other in keeping the House more and more strictly to its prearranged order of business for the day. Now the manifestations of this last tendency, which he makes very clear, can also be classed as changes made to save time or to arrange the distribution of time. Whether in the form of forbidding motions to vary the prescribed order of business, or to confine amendments and debate to matters relevant to the main question, or to exclude dilatory motions and others that open an indefinite field for discussion, they have the effect either of preventing waste of time by debating trivial questions or matters that the House does not care to take up, or of preventing the use for some other purpose of time allotted to the government or to a private member.
Since this was written Dr. Redlich's book has happily been translated into English, but as the English edition has not yet been received the references to the German edition are left unchanged.
[257:1] This is also Dr. Redlich's opinion, Recht und Technik, 246.
[258:1] May, 299.
[258:2] Ibid., 301.
[258:3] Ibid., 571.
[258:4] Ibid., 471.
[258:5] Ibid., 472-3.