§ Mr. WATTasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in the Scottish education discussion, arranged for on the adjournment of the House on Tuesday, the 7th instant, a count was moved, and the House adjourned in the middle of the reply of the Lord Advocate to the various points raised; and whether, in these circumstances, a further opportunity will be 369 given to the Lord Advocate to reply to the criticisms of the Scottish Education Department?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI understand that on the occasion in question the Lord Advocate had almost finished his reply, and that previously there had been a very full discussion upon the allocation of the Education Fund. As the Minute is now in operation, I do not think that any good purpose is to be gained by another discussion.
§ Mr. WATTIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member who moved the count was a Coronation baronet?
§ Mr. PIRIEWould it not have been more equitable to the rights of minorities, which are too small to keep a House and which consequently frequently suffer great hardship from the Government to have kept a House, so as to give them an opportunity of discussing what has long been felt to be a gross injustice?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI think the Government acted very fairly. They gave the time asked for, and if the House was not kept it was not their fault.
§ Mr. PIRIEBut when a small minority of Scotch Members receive no support from any other part of the House would it not have been more equitable and just for the Government to have acted for them and given them fair play?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI think they had nearly two hours.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is contrary to practice to call attention to the name of the hon. Member who moves a count. It is quite competent for an hon. Member to call attention to the fact there is not a quorum, but it is not usual to mention his name: it is not done in the Press.