§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he wished to ask a Question of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India, in the absence of the Prime Minister, which he thought that the noble Marquess's experience would enable him to answer. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had stated that it was not the custom or the practice for Ministers to take part in the debates of the House during the dinner hour. He wished to know whether that statement was, in the noble Marquess's opinion, in accordance with experience or authority? If it were, he would like to be informed to what Ministers or occupants of the Treasury Bench such a custom or practice applied; and, whether it applied to the occupants of the Front Opposition Bench; and, if so, to which of them; and, whether the obligation of sustaining the debates between the hours of half-past 7 and half-past 9 fell entirely upon private Members?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONSir, I hope that my experience in this House, long or short, will enable me to give the noble Lord a satisfactory answer to this Question. The reply of my right hon. Friend is reported in The Times to the following effect:—
Mr. Forster said that the only reply he could make to the hon. and learned Member was that, in important debates, it was not usual for a Member of the Government, in the position of the Attorney General for Ireland, to address the House during the dinner hour.My right hon. Friend informs me, and I think my recollection bears it out, that the report is not a completely full one—that what he did say was that it was not usual for a Member of the Government, holding a very important position in relation to the debate, and having a very important speech to answer, and an important statement to make, to address the House at the dinner hour. Sir, I 983 do not conceive that there is any difference whatever in this respect between the Members of the Government and the right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Front Opposition Bench and any other Member of the House. The noble Lord's experience of the House must, I think, have enabled him to perceive that any hon. Member who has to make an important speech, or what he considers an important speech, cannot, with satisfaction, address the House at a time when experience has shown him it will be extremely empty.
MR. GORSTasked the noble Marquess, whether, if the debate was to be continued during the dinner hour by hon. Members whose speeches were, in their opinion, unimportant, the Government would consider favourably a new Rule reserving to such hon. Members the privilege of tedious and persistent reiteration enjoyed and sometimes abused by Ministers of the Crown?
§ [No reply.]