§ Sir C. Napierobserved, that on Friday night the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had claimed to address the House on the main question—the motion actually before the House being one of adjournment. Now, he wished to learn from the right hon. Gentleman in the chair, whether it would be competent to any other Member to have addressed the House on the main question, a motion of adjournment being at the time before them.
§ The Speakerreplied, that the right hon. Baronet was, on the occasion referred to, fully entitled to address the House on the main question, for it was included in the question of adjournment. No doubt any other hon. Member would have been equally entitled to address the House.
§ Mr. Brothertonwished to know whether it would have been equally competent to Members to speak On the main question, if the motion had been for an adjournment of the House instead of for an adjournment of the question.
§ The Speakerobserved, that that was a very distinct question; but he was of opinion, that if a Member claimed to speak on the main question on the ground of its importance and urgency, the Chair could not interfere.
§ Sir R. Peelsaid, that he claimed to speak to the main question—upon that the Speaker said, that his doing so would be no evasion of the general rule. When Lord North signified his resignation of office, there was a motion that the House do then adjourn—upon which Lord North said, "Then I rise to speak to that motion."
Lord J. Russellthought that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth was perfectly justified in claiming to be heard on the main question, though a motion for adjournment was, strictly speak- 220 ing, the question before the House. It was difficult to separate the one from the other. Subject at an end.