HC Deb 26 January 1886 vol 302 cc429-31
MR. WOODALL

said, he wished to put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the order of Business to-morrow. The Parliamentary Franchise (Extension to Women) Bill was down for second reading on that day. It was admitted to be a question of great importance; and seeing that it was largely supported on both sides of the House, and that the Leader of the Opposition, as well as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had expressed n desire for an early decision upon it, might he ask that Wednesday, at any rate, might be left sacred to private Members, who had so few opportunities of making progress with legislation?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

, in reply, said, the question to which the hon. Member referred was one of undoubted importance, although, perhaps, he did not concur in the hon. Gentleman's views upon it. If the Bill did not come on to-morrow, he did not see how the question was likely to be fairly discussed during the present Session. Under these circumstances, he would not press the prosecution of the debate on the Address to-morrow.

MR. LABOUCHERE

asked, whether he was to understand that they were going on with the debate on the Address to-morrow, or whether the Bill of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Woodall) was to be put down as the first Order; and, if so, whether or not it would be necessary that evening to move the adjournment of the debate upon the Address until after that Bill?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that, according to the Orders of the House, Private Business on Tuesdays and Wednesdays took precedence of any debate on the Address; and, therefore, he had given Notice of the Motion which he was about to move, that the Order for resuming the adjourned debate on the Address should have precedence over Notices of Motion on that day. He did not intend to make a similar Motion to-morrow.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he wished, for the convenience of the House, to ask what would be the Motion made on the part of Her Majesty's Government with reference to the course of Business at the close of the debate that evening? He believed it had been expected by many, at any rate, that the debate on the Address would proceed to-morrow. It appeared, however, that the Government did not intend to proceed to-morrow with that debate; but that the second reading of a Bill of great interest was to be allowed by the Government to take its place; and the debate on that second reading, he presumed, in its natural course, would occupy Wednesday. Therefore, was he to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that he would move that night that the debate on the Address should be adjourned until Thursday? Or what Motion would he propose to make?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that he should make no Motion with regard to the adjournment of the debate on the Address. Any hon. Member who thought fit to do so would, at the proper time, be entitled to move the adjournment of that debate. It would then stand over till Thursday, and on Thursday he would make the Motion of which he had given Notice.

MR. GLADSTONE

I apprehend the day should be named on which the adjourned debate is to be resumed.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I speak with all deference to the right hon. Gentleman's far greater experience; but I should apprehend that in the ordinary course of Business the debate on the Address would be adjourned till the next Government night, which is Thursday.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

Would it not, Mr. Speaker, be competent for any private Member to move that the debate on the Address be proceeded with to-morrow instead of a Bill introduced by a private Member?

MR. GLADSTONE

If I may be permitted, I should like to ask you, Sir, if to-night, at the proper time, a Motion is made for the adjournment of the debate, and if no other Motion be made, what would be the effect on the debate relating to the Answer to the Speech from the Throne?

MR. SPEAKER

It would be necessary to name a day to which the debate would be adjourned, and that course could be taken day by day.

MR. PARNELL

I beg to ask, Sir, whether, in the event of the debate on the Address being adjourned till Thursday by the House to-night, it would not necessarily stand as the first Order of the Day for Thursday; or whether the Government would not have the power of its own accord—as Thursday will be a Government night—of putting some other Business before it?

MR. SPEAKER

A Motion would have to be made that the Order of the Day should be postponed in order to make way for any other Motion.