HC Deb 02 May 1902 vol 107 cc574-5
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

Will you kindly allow me, Mr. Speaker, to direct your attention to the subject of the editing of Questions at the Table, as a matter of order, and one affecting the rights of Members. I desire strictly to guard myself against anything like a personal attack or an imputation on the learned Gentleman at the Table, from whom I, in common with every other Member of the House, always receive the greatest courtesy, but it is the rule of Parliament that Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Speaker alone, is the judge in regard to the editing of Questions. When I handed in my Question yesterday, I was informed by the clerk at the Table that it would have to be slightly altered. I did not object to that, but I do object to the elimination of the governing sentence of my Question without Mr. Speaker's authority. The sentence cannot be out of order, because a year ago I asked the self-same Question, and on that occasion it was not eliminated.

* MR. SPEAKER

I am informed that the hon. Member was told at the Table that the Question would be altered.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

That is so.

* MR. SPEAKER

Then in that case the hon. Member should have come to me. The hon. Member says I am responsible for anything that is done. So ultimately I am; but surely the hon. Member does not suppose that every Question is submitted to, and edited by me before it is put into the list. If hon. Members are not satisfied with the view of the clerks at the Table, from whom, I am sure, as the hon. Member says, they receive every courtesy, the question comes before me; and, as the hon. Member was informed that the Question was not a proper one to put on the Paper, he should have come to me. It would be quite intolerable if, whenever an hon. Member was not satisfied with what was done with his Question at the Table, he was to raise a debate in the House.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

You somewhat misunderstand me, Sir. It is not my intention to raise a debate. I did not object to alteration, but when I was told by the clerk at the Table that my Question would be altered, I did not understand it to mean mutilation.

* MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member, when he was told that the Question would require to be altered, might have asked what the alteration was. If he found the effect of the alteration was to put the Question into a shape in which he did not wish to ask it he could have declined to ask it, or he could have put it down again and then have appealed to me. That is the proper course, and not to raise a question in the open House.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

I am quite satisfied with the explanation. I hope the House will forgive me for trying jealously to guard our mutual interests. It is a fault in the right direction.