§ MR. BRYCEMr. Speaker, I wish to ask you whether, in the event of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) being put and rejected, it would be open to myself and to my hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) to move the Amendments which new stand upon the Paper in our names?
§ MR. SPEAKERIn reply to the hon. Gentleman I have to say that if the result of the Vote to-night—which is "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question"—be in the negative, then the Amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) would become the substantive Question. In the event of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member being rejected there would still remain the word "That," to which, in accordance with the practice, it would, of course, be competent to move that any addition should be made. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to move that any addition should be made he can take that course.
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONMay I inquire what course the Prime Mi- 1623 nister proposes to take with respect to the various Amendments?
MR. GLADSTONEI presume that the Amendments will be moved in the order in which they stand upon the Paper; and it is my intention to vote in the negative in each instance upon the various Amendments as they are put in succession. The first division, as I understand, will be upon the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), then upon the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley), and in succession upon the other proposals.