§ MR. W. M. TORRENSWith reference to the New Rules of Procedure, I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the term "Minister of the Crown" was meant to be understood as applying only to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or one of the Secretaries 1390 of State; and whether until such limitation should be made by further Resolution of the House, it was to be understood that no other holder of office in Her Majesty's Government should claim to have the right of moving "urgency?"
MR. GLADSTONEI have not had sufficient time, since I became aware that my hon. Friend intended to put this Question, to make a very formal examination into it. At the same time, I have no difficulty whatever in giving him what I hope he will consider a sufficiently practical answer. I do not entertain any doubt as to the proper meaning, as fixed by usage, of the term "Minister of the Crown." It would, undoubtedly, in my opinion, comprehend every Member of the Cabinet, and nobody but a Member of the Cabinet. I think that to be unquestionable, according to present usage; but, while that may seem unsatisfactory to my hon. Friend, I do not hesitate to say that I think the intention of the declaration of the House to be that the Motion should be made, not on behalf of any Department, but on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. I should, therefore, say it would naturally and regularly he made, and be made only, by the Leader of the House, whatever Office he may happen to hold. He might hold the Office of Secretary of State, or Chancellor of the Exchequer and First Lord of the Treasury. It will even be in the recollection of some that at one time my noble Friend, the late lamented Lord John Russell, was for a short period Leader of this House without holding any Department. I hold the meaning in the view of the House, and the correct and proper course, would be that the Motion should be made by the Leader of the House.
§ MR. TOTTENHAMasked, Whether, as the House was shortly to be called upon to vote the application of an additional Rule, framed by Mr. Speaker, in connection with the Bill for the Protection of Person and Property in Ireland, the Prime Minister would state the intention of the Government respecting the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), or similar Amendments, which might be handed in previous to the hour mentioned in his Notice of Motion, or at any subsequent stage of the Bill?
MR. GLADSTONEI hope the hon, and gallant Gentleman will not think me discourteous; hut I own I should be sorry to establish a precedent, when a Bill is in Committee, by giving a reply to a Question as to the course the Government intend to take upon any particular Amendment on the Paper, because it is obvious the same Rule would hold good as to any Amendment. An answer of that kind might not be favourable to the regular conduct of Business. All I can say is, that if such an Amendment can, and shall, be made as was on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton, the Government will then be prepared to take the course they consider most convenient under the circumstances.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he would like to know, with reference to the New Rules, whether the series might now be regarded as complete?
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEWith reference to the Question put by my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Tottenham), and to the answer of the Prime Minister, I wish to put a Question to you, Sir; and it will greatly conduce to the convenience of the House if you are able to answer it. It is, Whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) can be put, as a matter of Order, upon the stage at which we now are?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe right hon. Baronet puts a Question which would be more properly put to the Chairman of Committees, because it is a Question which will arise when the House is in Committee. If the Chairman of Committees should consider the Amendment not in Order, no doubt he would so state to the House.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEShould I, under these circumstances, be in Order in putting the Question to the Chairman of Committees now, because, of course, it materially affects the vote we are about to give?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe course proposed is so novel that I would rather not answer the Question without reflection. But if I am called upon to give an answer at once, I am bound to say I think the Question should not be put, as it might set up an inconvenient precedent.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORIf the hon. Member for Northampton's Amendment 1392 be ruled out of Order, will the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister be prepared to bring in an Amendment of a similar character, with a similar design, which will be in Order?
§ [No reply was given to this Question.]