HC Deb 21 March 1884 vol 286 cc455-7
MR. BUCHANAN

rose to put the following Question, which stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. Membe for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell):— To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, since the Scotch Members are generally agreed so far as to wish to see a Bill establishing a Minister for Scotland, he will give Notice of the introduction of such a Bill before Easter, in the hope that it may he read a first time unopposed, and printed?

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

Sir, I rise to a point of Order. I wish to know whether it is competent for an hon. Member to convey, in a Question, the comparative collective opinion of a large body of Members with whom, so far as I know, he has had no consultation? Certainly, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Buchanan) has not asked me for my opinion. I do not say that I am against the proposed Bill; but I object altogether to any hon. Member coming forward without authority, and putting a Question, and having the advantage that may accrue from its being supposed that he is conveying the opinion of all the Scotch Members.

MR. BUCHANAN

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman object to the Question which I propose to ask on behalf of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell)?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I think I can remove the difficulty.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

I ask for the ruling of the Chair on a point of Order.

MR. SPEAKER

On the point of Order, I am bound to say that Questions which involve matters of argument, or statements of opinion, are irregular. It was impossible to know, when this Question was put upon the Paper, whether it was an accurate version of the facts or not; but since my attention has been called by the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) to the circumstance that the statement contained in the Question is not founded upon fact, I should say that, so far, the Question is irregular in point of form.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I think, Sir, the statement you have made is a confirmation of what I was saying.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

I rise to Order. I understand you, Sir, to rule that the Question, in its present form, cannot be put.

MR. SPEAKER

I rule that so far as this Question is based upon a statement of fact, that it is the general expression of the wishes of the Scotch Members, it is irregular; the rest of the Question may be put.

MR. BUCHANAN

I am quite ready, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), to withdraw that part of the Question which is objected to, and which you, Sir, have ruled to be irregular.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Learning, both behind me and in front of me, that part of the Question is objected to, and that there is the opposition of the hon. Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell) to be reckoned upon, I assume that a considerable difference of opinion prevails. Of course, that is a material element in the consideration of the course which the Government will take. I was going to give a much more favourable answer to the Question than I am afraid I now can give in view of the strong opposition to the Bill which I have witnessed. All I can say is, that the Bill is ready; the draft of it is in print; and I hope the Bill itself will be introduced before Easter, and that it will not be so strongly opposed, after all, as now seems likely to be the case.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, I wish, with the permission of the House, to make a personal explanation. I have not said that I am opposed to the measure at all. I only objected, as a question of Order, to a statement being made in a Question which involves an expression of opinion which, as far as I know, is contrary to the fact. My own Questions have been frequently objected to on that ground, and I claim that, the same course ought to be pursued in regard to all Members.