§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON
wished to ask the Speaker, as a matter of Order, whether the expression "the indulgence of the House" was of the same significance as the "leave of the House;" and whether, if it were the wish of the House, expressed by one of its Members, that this indulgence should not be granted, the Speaker might, nevertheless, exercise his discretion and allow a Member to speak a second time, though he might not have risen to explain a material part of his previous speech?
§ MR. SPEAKER
I must point out to the hon. Member and the House that it would be inconvenient to put Questions to the Chair except on points of Order as they arise. I may say, however, that there is a difference in signification between the two expressions "by leave of the House" and "with the indulgence of the House." When a Member addresses the House, as has just now been done by the right hon. Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke), he addresses it "with the indulgence of the House," and if it is found by the Chair that the House is not disposed to hear him, the Chair would not call upon him. The expression "the leave of the House" is well understood to be this. When a Member desires to withdraw a Motion or an Amendment he asks leave of the House, and if a single dissentient voice is raised on that occasion, leave is not granted.