MR. BENTINCKMr. Speaker, I I wish to call your attention for a few moments to a point of Order which arose last evening on the second reading of the University Tests Bill—in reference to the right of the Mover and Seconder 1468 of a Motion for the adjournment of a debate to speak on the Main Question. It appeared to many Members of the House that the decision which you, Sir, then announced from the Chair was somewhat at variance with the practice of this House, as that practice is ordinarily understood. In calling attention to this question, I must state that I wish to show no disrespect whatever to you or the high office which you hold. Ever since I have had the honour of a seat in this House I have done my best to bow to all the decisions that you have announced, and to share in the admiration which has been expressed by the highest authorities as to the mode in which you have conducted yourself since you have sat in that Chair. The circumstances of the case are briefly these—After twelve o'clock last night my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. B. Hope) moved the adjournment of the debate. He did not address himself to the Main Question, but simply moved the adjournment. Some confusion then arose, and, without rising from my place, I endeavoured in the most formal manner to second that Motion. The division was taken, and the Motion for the adjournment having been rejected, I proceeded to address myself to the Main Question, whereupon I was stopped by you, Sir, and was told that, having seconded the Motion in the manner I have mentioned, it was not competent for me to speak on the Main Question. These are the simple facts of the case, which can be corroborated by three or four of my hon. Friends near me, and I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, Whether, under such circumstances, I had or had not a right to speak on the Main Question?
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPEPerhaps, Sir, in answering the Question of my hon. Friend you will also kindly inform me and the House what are the rights of a Member who has moved the adjournment of a debate. I have always looked on such a Motion as containing all the elements of a perfect Motion, and that if it passed in a short and informal manner it did so only by the connivance of the House. I may say that the Motion I made last night was pressed to a division against my own wish. The result of that Motion did not appear to me, with all respect to you, Sir, to be of the essence of the question, the essence 1469 of the question was the Motion put from the Chair. Of course, however, I did not raise any question last night, as you, Sir, had ruled upon the matter; but the House will, I am sure, he glad to know for its guidance what is the law on the subject.
§ MR. SPEAKERI will answer the Questions of the hon. Gentleman in the order in which they have been addressed to me. After the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) moved the adjournment of the debate the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Bentinck) said, in a very distinct tone of voice, that he seconded the Motion. The House declined to permit the adjournment; and after that the hon. Member for Whitehaven rose to address the House. Of late years there has certainly been a relaxation of the rule with regard to seconding Motions, partly for the convenience of discussion; but hon. Members will bear in mind that when there have been contests for the adjournment of the debate, if one Member has moved the adjournment of the debate, and another Member has seconded it, it is not competent for either the Mover or Seconder of such a Motion immediately to rise and move the adjournment of the House. That must be done by some other voices. It was on that account when the hon. Member for Whitehaven rose to speak I told him that, having seconded the adjournment of the debate, it was not competent for him to move the adjournment of the House or to speak on the Main Question. If he had power to speak on the Main Question he would have had power to move the adjournment of the House; but, having seconded the adjournment of the debate, it was not competent for him to speak until some other Member had moved the adjournment of the House. That is the reason for the judgment which I gave last night, and it is, I believe, in accordance with the practice of the House. With respect to the Question which has been put to me by the hon. Gentleman who moved the adjournment of the debate, I may observe that when the House is disposed that the debate should be adjourned, it is constantly the object and desire of the hon. Member who wishes to have pre-audience on the next evening to rise and move the adjournment of the debate, and such a Motion is generally acceded to even 1470 without being seconded, by the common acceptation of the House. But when the adjournment of a debate has been moved, and the House has declined to assent to the Motion and has divided upon it, the hon. Member who moved it and had an opportunity to address the House if he chose, has under those circumstances lost the power of addressing the House on the Main Question,