§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to you upon a point of Order in reference to a Division which took place at an early hour this morning, upon the Second Reading of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Fins-bury (Mr. J. Rowlands). The Division took place immediately before 1 o'clock on the Question that the word "now" stand part of the Question. By the time the Division was over it was past 1 o'clock, and the proceedings of the House came to a close. But I find in the Minutes circulated this morning the following entry, "Question put that the word 'now' stand part of the Question. The House divided:—Ayes, 31; Noes 69.—Words added." Now, Sir, I understood at the time that you did not put those words as a separate Motion on account of 1 o'clock having been reached. If that be so, I would ask that the Minutes should be amended so that before the words "on this day six months" be added it may be competent for hon. Gentlemen to move another Amendment.
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman is in error. I distinctly put to the House the Question "that the words 'on this day six months' be added."
§ MR. CONYBEAREWhat I wish to know is whether, on an occasion like that, before the words, "this day six 930 months" are added, it is not competent for any hon. Member to propose a further Amendment instead of six months—say, two months or on this day fortnight?
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe universal practice was followed, and such an Amendment as the hon. Member suggests would have been inadmissible.