HC Deb 14 March 1882 vol 267 cc893-4

said, he wished to ask the opinion of the Speaker with regard to a Question of Order. It would be in the recollection of the House that yesterday he seconded a Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) by going through the formality of raising his hat. Later on he rose to address the House, when he was stopped by the Speaker, who ruled that he had exhausted his right by formally seconding the Motion. He wished to state that he believed he was entitled to address the House, and he afterwards referred to Sir Erskine May's work on Parlia- mentary Practice, where, at page 333, he found the following sentence:— Formerly a Member who had moved an Order of the Day or seconded a Motion was precluded from afterwards addressing the House upon the same question, or was heard merely by the indulgence of the House; but of late years the option of speaking at a subsequent period of the debate has been conceded whenever the moving or seconding is confined to the formality of raising the hat. He wished to ask whether or not that opinion was an accurate representation of the practice of the House?


I have to say, in the first place, that the point of Order ought to have been raised at the time. At the same time I am quite willing to answer the appeal of the noble Lord. The noble Lord seconded not a substantive Motion, but a Motion for the adjournment of the House; and I may say that a Member seconding a Motion for the adjournment is fully entitled to speak at the time. If he raises his hat he can only speak later in the debate with the indulgence of the House. I cannot say that the occasion to which the noble Lord refers is one on which special indulgence should be conceded. The quotation cited by the noble Lord from the valuable work of Sir Erskine May applies to substantive Motions and Orders of the Day, and not to questions of the adjournment of the House like that which arose yesterday.