THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, he wished to ask a Question upon a point of Order in relation to a Question on the Paper that day in the name of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. R. Smyth). He wished to know, If that Question did not violate the Rule of the House that no Question should contain any debatable matter? The Rule was enforced so that hon. Members might not, under the cover of Questions, make statements which would appear to command general assent owing to the silence which at Question time was imposed by the Rules of the House. If their debates were not 1935 reported, this would not be of any consequence; but as they were reported, and the public generally were not acquainted with their Rules, a very erroneous impression might be produced and injurious consequences might follow from statements in regard to which there was a difference of opinion out-of-doors being received without any articulate dissent. The question raised by his hon. Friend did not appear to him to command anything approaching general acquiescence in Ireland, and he begged to ask, whether upon the Rule of the House, to which he had referred, it would be allowable for the hon. Member to put it?
§ MR. SPEAKERIn answer to the Question of the hon. Member, I have to observe that the Notice standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. R. Smyth) is in these terms—''To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will, on an early day, afford an opportunity for the moving of a Resolution?" That seems to me a perfectly simple Question.
§ MR. RICHARD SMYTHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will, on an early day, afford an opportunity for the moving of the following Resolution:—
That, having regard to the action taken by Her Majesty's Government, and to the decision of the Select Committee on the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill, in the present Session of Parliament, this House is of opinion that it will be highly detrimental to the public interest should Her Majesty's Government allow the question involved to remain unsettled for another year
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERIt appears to me, Sir, that the discussion of such a Resolution as the hon. Gentleman proposes would involve a considerable consumption of time, and would after all not lead to any practical result. I am therefore afraid I cannot offer to give any assistance by setting apart a day for the discussion of such a Resolution. But, on the other hand, I may say this—the Government are ready to co-operate as far as they can properly do so in enabling the House to discuss this measure. As I suggested the other 1936 day, I think the convenient course would he, if an arrangement could be made with other hon. Members who have Notices upon the Paper, by which Wednesday, the 27th instant, could be taken for that discussion; the Government would be quite prepared, in that case, if the hon. Gentleman puts down his Bill for that day, to move that the Orders of the Day be postponed in its favour. If the discussion were held in that way, and it appeared that the one day was not sufficient, Government would be prepared to give another day—a Morning Sitting—for the purpose.
§ MR. RICHARD SMYTHthanked the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, and would do everything in his power to ensure its being carried out.