§ Mr. COWANArising out of the incident which occurred yesterday afternoon at Question Time, I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you do not think that the time has now come to relax a Rule the application of which is, in my humble judgment, both oppressive to some Members of this House and illogical in itself? This question was raised in 1895, on the 26th February, again on the 24th May, 1898, and again, when you yourself were in the Chair, on the 19th March, 1906. On each occasion, in my opinion, an unsatisfactory answer was given, and certainly the matter was left in an unsatisfactory state. I think I may presume to say that it is still unsatisfactory. There is here a distinct and serious conflict between the theory and practice. The theory is as you stated yesterday in your interpretation of the Rule, which, of course, I absolutely and implicitly accept. That theory is that when a Member of this House desires to retain a seat for a particular sitting he must place upon that seat, some time before the meeting of the House, two cards, a large card and a small card. The large card bears upon the face of it this declaration, "This card, signed and placed on a seat by a Member, will secure it for him on that day until he attends Prayers, provided that he does not in the meantime quit the precincts of the House." That is the theory, and I make bold to say, and I think I may go so far as to defy contradiction, that not one Member in ten obeys that injunction.
§ Mr. COWANIf any hon. Member comes into this House before Prayers he 1648 will find, if the day is the occasion of a full-dress Debate or if there is any matter of considerable interest to be discussed in the House, a large number of seats reserved, and he will find them reserved with a small card bearing nothing but the mystic word "Prayers.1 Why is it that the practice has been changed? When I first came into the House, ten years ago, the universal practice was for a Member to write his name on both cards and place both cards on the seat he desired to take. As time went on, I noticed that a large number of Members gradually dropped putting this large card on the seat, and to-day the small card only is placed there, except by one or two Members who probably attach an exaggerated importance to antique practices.
§ Mr. COWANIt is just because I want to get on with the War that I say we should get the opportunities to which we are entitled of securing our places in this House, the only business of which is, for the moment, the conduct of the War. I submit that the fact that the large cards have been discarded by the common consent of Members of this House is evidence that the Rule has become obsolete. In these strenuous times there are few Members who have the time to come here in the early morning and remain here doing nothing for hours until the House meets, and I am not one of them. There are very few Members who have time to do this mainly in order to compete with others for certain places in the House. In circumstances as they are to-day, in these times of war, and I will not base my case too strongly upon the War, because I think that the argument is relevant even in times of peace, I would say that this House might very well adapt itself to modern conditions, and it is an absurdity and an anachronism that this injunction, which each one of us has ignored for years, should remain a Rule of the House, and that an hon. Member should have a right, simply because he has been here all day doing nothing, to oust another Member who has been engaged upon national work—and this applies to most Members, though not to the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle). It is a monstrous thing that men who have nothing better to do than come here and waste time in waiting for prayers, which they do not attend, should have a right to oust other Members who are doing serious work from the places to which they are entitled. I believe 1649 that if you make inquiries you will discover that the practice has been exactly as has been described, and that the general sense of the Members of the House would approve of such alteration in the Rules as would prevent such a state of things from continuing to exist.
Mr. SPEAKERI expounded what the hon. Member calls the "theory" yesterday, and I think that the hon. Member "will do the Chair the justice to say that in the decisions given in 1895, 1898, and 1906, the Chair took up exactly the same position. It may be true that, in consequence of the abnormal state of things which has existed during this Session and last, Members have not been attending the House from early morning until prayer time, as they did before when there were Committees at work, but I do not think that it is for me to alter these Rules. The hon. Member has asked me to make a new rule. I have no power to make a new rule. The House makes its own rules; I am only the interpreter. I think that the proper course would be, if there is really any general desire that the Rules should be altered— [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—to alter the Standing Orders. There are already two Standing Orders dealing with Members' places, presence at prayers, and so on, and if the House generally wishes to alter the old system, it is always open to the House to do so, either by a general Resolution, or a Resolution which would become a Standing Order of the House.
§ Mr. WILKIEWould it not be possible to extend the red ticket to those of us who are doing work for the War, as well as those who are engaged on other Committees of the House?
Mr. SPEAKERThe red ticket is issued under a Resolution of the House, which limits its use to Members who are engaged on Committees, and therefore it would require another Resolution of the House, or an amendment of that original Resolution, to extend it to other Committees.
Mr. PR INGLEI only wish to say that the hon. Gentleman did not do my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) the courtesy to inform him that he was going to raise this question again, and further that the incident would never have arisen had it not been that the agreeable manners of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowan) made his near proximity oppressive to his neighbours.