SUPPLY [4th March] REPORT. (Hansard, 7 March 1892)

§ (12.3.) MR. MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)
With great respect, Sir, I ask that this Report may not be taken to-night, and I will tell you why. Of course, Mr. Speaker in the Chair cannot in his official capacity take cognisance of what happens in Committee of Supply, but what occurred on Friday last was this: the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees left the Chair immediately after the Vote for the Mombasa Railway was taken, and I had no opportunity whatever of raising the question which I and my friends wished to raise—a question of principle as to whether three hon. Gentlemen pecuniarily interested in the Vote had any right to vote at all. We did our best to raise the question, but the Leader of the House, the moment the Chancellor of the Exchequer sat down, moved the Closure, and although the Chairman did not allow the Question to be put then—a few minutes before 7 o'clock—the right hon. Gentleman again moved the Closure, and the House divided. On the Main Question, my hon. Friend (Mr. Morton) and I asked if these three Gentlemen, two of them directors and one a large shareholder in the Company, should be allowed to vote. The Chairman replied it was not a question for the Chairman of Committees to decide. I then asked whether 260 it was a question for Mr. Speaker to decide, and the Chairman gave me pretty much the same answer, that it was for the House to decide. I understand now that a question of Privilege, arising out of proceedings in Committee, should be raised with the Chairman in the Chair. I have communicated with the right hon. Gentleman, and I now wish that the Report of the Vote should not be taken now, because that would conclude the proceedings in relation to the Vote. But I submit that at present the Committee stage is not concluded, and that it will be open to me to question these votes to-morrow. On these grounds, and having regard to all interests, I do not think we should be asked to rush this Vote after midnight. I ask that this Vote may be postponed until it can be decided whether, in reference to this Vote, hon. Members who are pecuniarily interested should be allowed to vote.

§ (12.6.) THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.
I do not quite understand why the hon. Gentleman desires to have the Report deferred. I do not see what purpose he desires to gain. The point raised the other night has often been raised before; we are quite familiar with it. The propriety of hon. Gentlemen voting the question of order or disorder involved in their voting on a question concerning a company in which they happen to be directors has constantly been discussed in the House, and rulings have been given by Mr. Speaker again and again. I do not know that the opinion would be better given to-morrow than to-night. I do not see what object the hon. Member will gain by the postponement.

§ MR. MACNEILL
But I cannot argue the point with Mr. Speaker in the Chair—the point arose in Committee, and must be argued with the Chairman in the Chair. I believe that there are very exceptional circumstances in relation to this case distinguishing it from all others.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I understand the hon. Gentleman desires to raise a point in Committee, which he was precluded from doing on Friday. I understand that the hon. Member desires that the House should express an opinion as to votes given on another occasion. It will be quite competent for the hon. Member to 261 do that when the House next goes into Committee of Supply. He may then refer to the votes he wishes to challenge.

§ MR. MACNEILL
In that case I am satisfied.

§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)
I do not quite know whether I am in order in objecting to the Report being taken now. I understand that the Order of the House exempting Report of Supply from the Twelve o'Clock Rule is a Sessional Order, and has not been adopted this Session.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Does the hon. Member object?

§ DR. CLARK
Yes, I object because the Vote was closured in Committee before it was fully discussed.