§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONSir, before we proceed to the other business of the day, I have to request your opinion on a question of order connected with our Rules with regard to the system of answering Questions. The system of Questioning has grown now to so great an extent that I am sure every hon. Member of this House will agree with me that it is desirable that, whatever our Rules may be, they should be adhered to as strictly as possible. I now refer more particularly to the course which was adopted yesterday by the Secretary of State for War, when, in answering a Question by an hon. and gallant Member behind me (Major Arbuthnot), he combined with his Answer a statement in reply to a portion of a speech delivered by me in this House not more than a fortnight ago. I do not for a moment suspect my right hon. Friend of intending anything like unfairness; but I do think I have some reason to complain of the course adopted; and therefore, Sir, I beg to request your opinion as to whether it is consistent with the Rules and the Practice of this House with respect to asking and answering Questions, for a Minister of the Crown, after answering a Question put to him by an hon. Member, to proceed to add to his Answer a reply to a statement made some time before in a debate made by another hon. Member, and that in terms requiring an explanation which could not, consistently with the forms of the House, be given.
§ MR. CARDWELLBefore you give an answer, Sir, perhaps I may be allowed to ask another Question for my future guidance. I wish to know, Whether when a statement has been made affecting me and those with whom I have the honour to serve in the War Department, in terms of which it was said that they were used in order to invite explanation on the subject—I wish to know whether, when remarks are made, without previous Notice to me, so that I cannot, on the spur of the moment, give an answer I shall be at liberty on a subsequent occasion to give an answer in vindication 251 of myself and those with whom I have the honour to serve? I am perfectly aware that I should not be entitled to refer to a former debate for the purpose of founding any argument on it; but I believe it is in conformity with the usages of this House that anybody against whom an imputation has been made without Notice, should have an opportunity, after inquiry, of answering that imputation, and vindicating also those with whom in his Department he has had the honour to serve? I apprehend that, in order to make such answer intelligible, it is necessary and right to refer to the charge itself, and that that reference cannot be more fairly made than by simply quoting, without comment, the words in which the imputation was conveyed.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) has put to me a Question with respect to a point of Order regarding the Rules and Practice of this House, in putting Questions and answering them. There can be no doubt that it is not in order for any hon. Member of this House, in putting a Question, or making an Answer, to advert to former debates. The question now before the House is, however, of another kind. It is true that yesterday the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War referred to a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich. But the right hon. Gentleman was at the time answering a Question of the hon. and gallant Member for Hereford (Major Arbuthnot), and the matter of the Answer would have been perfectly in order, as a reply to the Question of that hon. and gallant Member. Had the right hon. Gentleman not referred at all to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich, no question of Order could have arisen. I am, at the same time, bound to say that, in order to make his Answer clear to the House, it was almost incumbent on the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for War, to advert to what had passed on a former occasion.