HC Deb 27 March 1893 vol 10 cc1194-7
MR. T. W. RUSSELL

I desire, Sir, to call attention to an error in the Journals of Saturday morning's Sitting. It is recorded at page 288 that in the Committee stage on the Army Annual Bill— Mr. Conybeare rose to move on Clause 2 that the Question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill be now put. Question put, that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill. The Committee divided: Ayes 238; Noes 127. Now, Sir, I desire to point out that that is hardly an accurate record of the proceedings at that stage. What took place was this——

MR. T. M. HEALY

I rise to Order, Sir. I wish to know whether a challenge as to the accuracy of the Journals should not be by Motion?

MR. SPEAKER

No; I think not. If there is an erroneous entry in the Votes I can order it to be corrected.

MR. SEXTON

I wish to ask you, Sir, whether an alleged error in the Journals should not be brought personally to your notice, and not made the subject of debate in this House?

MR. SPEAKER

Action of this kind has been taken before in similar cases. If the hon. Member can substantiate his assertion that there is an error in the Votes and Proceedings I will have it altered.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

Before you, Sir, or the House can be satisfied I must be heard. What took place was this; The hon. Member for King's Lynn, on Clause 2, was moving an Amendment. He had not moved. The hon. Member for Lanarkshire moved that the Question be now put. The Chairman took no notice of that Motion, and the hon. Member for King's Lynn proceeded with his speech. A few minutes later the hon. Member for North Louth asked the Chairman whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for King's Lynn was in Order, seeing that the Question "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill" had been put. The Chairman ruled that he had not put the Question "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill," and called upon the hon. Member for King's Lynn to move his Amendment. Immediately after that the hon. Member for Camborne rose in his place, and simply moved "That the Question be now put." The Chairman rose and put the Question, "That the Question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill be now put." I submit, in the first place, that no such Motion was made by the hon. Member for Camborne. The Motion moved by him was simply, "That the Question be now put." I have the Closure Rule in my hand, and desire to read the latter part of the Rule.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I rise again to Order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask whether the hon. Member must not confine himself to the alleged error in the Journals? He cannot, I submit, discuss what did or did not take place?

MR. SPEAKER

Before I can adjudicate upon the facts I must he acquainted with what took place.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

The second part of the Closure Rule reads— When the Motion 'That the Question be now put' has been earned, and the Question consequent thereon has been decided, any further Motion may be made which may be requisite to bring to a decision any Question already proposed from the Chair; and also, if a clause be then under consideration, the Motion may be made, as aforesaid, that the Question that certain words of the clause defined in the Motion stand part of the clause, or that the clause stand part of or be added to the Bill, be now put. The House will see that the Motion must be made, and I submit that the hon. Member for Camborne made no such Motion, that no such Motion was made in the Committee; that the Chairman put it and that it was at once challenged.

DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)

I rise to Order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member has said that the Chairman of Com- mittees put a Motion that was not made. In other words, he has said that the Chairman of Committees did not properly carry out his duty as Chairman. I desire to ask whether it is competent under the guise of a mere correction of the Journals to impugn the conduct of the Chairman of Committees?

MR. SPEAKER

I do not understand the hon. Member to be impugning the conduct of the Chairman. He is, I understand, stating his impression of what took place. I need hardly say that I will take no part in this matter. The Chairman of Committees will offer an explanation, and I can then decide whether the entry is right.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

I have not the slightest intention of impugning the conduct of the Chairman. My point is that there appears on the Journals a record that the hon. Member for Camborne moved a specific Motion. I say that no such Motion was made. I am in the recollection of the House, and there is not a newspaper report in London that does not bear out my statement. What I desire to ask is whether the simple Motion "That the Question be now put" can be interpreted as stopping an Amendment before the Committee, and closing discussion on a clause?

MR. MELLOR (York, W.R., Sowerby)

Mr. Speaker, with your permission, and the permission of the House, I will take the unusual course of explaining my ruling on Friday. The hon. Member for South Tyrone has taken an extremely fine and technical point, and I should like to explain exactly what took place. The hon. Member has, I think, correctly stated the facts. Clause 2 had been called on for discussion, and was the only matter before the Committee at that time. I had, in the ordinary way, called out "Clause 2." The clause then became under consideration, and my duty as Chairman was to see whether any Amendment would be moved. I was waiting for an Amendment when the hon. Member for North Louth asked me whether Clause 2 had been put. I replied that it had not. If no Amendment had been moved, the next Question would have been "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill." Before I could put that Question the hon. Member for Camborne moved in general terms "That the Question be now put." That is the ordinary form in which the Closure is moved, and I think that if an hon. Member moves a Motion while I am in the Chair I am bound to impute to him that he is doing it in accordance with the Rules of the House and common sense. The only possible Question that could be put was "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill be now put," that clause being then under consideration. That is what I should suppose was what any hon. Member who moved the Closure at that moment meant, for it was the only possible mode in which the Closure could be moved or accepted. I interpreted it according to the mode in which I sincerely trust I shall always interpret the Motion of any hon. Member, and that is to put the only construction on it allowed by the Rules of the House. Under the circumstances, I put the Question in the form which the hon. Member for South Tyrone mentions. His complaint is that the hon. Member for Cam-borne did not move in precisely the same words as those in which I put the Question —that is, that I put an interpretation on the words of the hon. Member for Camborne, which I submit was the only interpretation I could possibly put upon them.

MR. BRODRICK (Surrey, Guildford)

Perhaps I may be allowed to say one word in connection with what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. SPEAKER

No Debate can arise. The House has heard the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, and I am bound to say that I do not think there is any error in the record.