§ DR. J. E. KENNY (Cork, S.)Sir, I find that a Question which I handed to the Clerk on this day week, fixing to-day for putting it, does not appear upon the Paper. The complaint I have to make is that I have received no notice explaining why it has not been put upon the Paper. I wish to know from you, Sir, whether it is not the privilege of a Member to receive notice if a Question is irregular, in order that he may, if possible, correct the irregularity?
§ MR. SPEAKERAs a general rule, communications are sent to hon. Members whenever there is any irregularity in their Questions. The reason why the hon. Gentleman's Question was rejected was because it contained matter of argument. I suppose it is owing to the pressure of Business that the omission to send notice to the hon. Member occurred. I regret that it should be so; but as a general rule, as I have said, communications are always sent.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)I also gave Notice of a Question yesterday to the Clerk at the Table. The Question was taken by the Clerk; and, at the suggestion of the Clerk, I myself made a correction in it, and I understood that the Question was one which would be placed upon the Paper. I find, however, that it has no place upon the Paper to-day, and I have received no notice on the subject.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe Question which the hon. Gentleman proposed to put was fully answered yesterday; and the Clerk, acting upon his own authority and discretion, and entirely with my concurrence, did not put it upon the Paper. I should say that the Question, as it was first submitted, was a most improper one. It contained innuendoes which I stigmatized last night in terms not too strong; and I am surprised to find that the hon. Gentleman should make any complaint as to its not being on the Paper.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORAs you have deemed it right, Sir, to reprobate, in very strong terms, the Question of which I gave Notice, I think I have a right to claim your indulgence and that of the House while I explain what the Question really was. The Question, Mr. Speaker, was this. [Cries of "No!"] In the first place—
§ MR. SPEAKERI cannot allow the hon. Member to state a Question which I have ruled to be improper. I may say that the part of the Question I objected to, and which I immediately struck out, was that in which the hon. Member desired to ask whether there had been any communication between the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury and myself on the subject of applying the closure to the debate. That was a Question which I thought was a most improper one, and one 234 which the hon. Gentleman was not entitled to ask.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORWill you permit me to say that, in proposing to put that Question, I did so for the purpose of showing that the right hon. Gentleman was presuming to assume your consent to the closure being put; and permit me further, Mr. Speaker, to say that I did it in order to show my sense that you would impartially administer the law committed to your care, and that the right hon. Gentleman was placing an unjust and unworthy stigma upon you.
§ MR. SPEAKERI stated that the Question was fully answered last night It is not usual to put down a Question which has already received a full reply. In order, however, to satisfy the hon. Gentleman, I may say that the Question was to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he was correctly reported in an evening journal to have declared that he intended to apply the closure to the debate on the Motion for the introduction of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill? Then followed that part of the Question which I considered to be improper and irregular, and which I struck out. To the other part of the Question a full and definite reply was given by the right hon. Gentleman last night.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORI am sure, Sir, you will permit me to explain, as you appear to be under the impression that I was about to put on the Paper some Question imputing unworthy motives to you, that I had no such intention whatever. Nothing was further from my thoughts; but really my object was to saddle the right hon. Gentleman with the responsibility of assuming that which he had no right to assume.