HC Deb 01 March 1887 vol 311 c894
MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

I wish, Sir, to put a Question to you upon a point of Order, in reference to the adjourned debate on the Rules of Procedure. The Rule reads— That, after a Question has been proposed, a Motion may he made, if the consent of the Chair has been previously obtained, 'That the Question be now put.' There are three Amendments on the Paper to omit the words, "if the consent of the Chair has been previously obtained," and there are three other Amendments to insert other words after the word "made." The Amendment of the hon. Member for South-East Lancashire (Mr. Leake) provides that the Motion may be made— By a Member of the Government, or the mover or seconder of the Motion then in Debate, or the mover or seconder of an Amendment thereto. That of the hon. Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny) provides that it shall be made "by the Leader of the House," and a third Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Eye Division of Suffolk (Mr. Stevenson) provides that it may be made— By a Member of Her Majesty's most honourable Privy Council, or by the mover or seconder of the Motion or Amendment thereto at that time in Debate. What I wish to ask is, whether these Amendments ought not to be taken before the Amendments to leave out, "if the consent of the Chair has been previously obtained?"

MR. SPEAKER

I think the House will see that the Amendments standing in the names of the hon. Members for South-East Lancashire, Mid Tyrone, and the Eye Division of Suffolk should take precedence of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) to leave out, "if the consent of the Chair has been previously obtained," inasmuch as they come after the word "made."