§ Mr. HOPEI wish to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order. I sent in to you the text of a Private Notice question, of which I gave notice to the Minister, and I understood you to rule that it came too late to be asked to-day. For the general convenience of the House, I should be glad if you could say what is the rule on the subject, as it is not, I understand, generally understood.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is quite impossible for me in the course of questions to give adequate consideration to matters which are then submitted. These Private Notice questions require consideration, and on a previous occasion—last year, I think it was—I asked that, at least 888 before one o'clock in the day, I might be put in possession of any such questions.
§ Mr. HOPEMay I ask this further question? If notice of a question be submitted before the time Ministers answer Private Notice questions, and you have not had time to consider it, does the right of the Member concerned remain to ask it as a Private Notice question the day after? May I ask, further, what would happen if some event of great and startling importance were to occur between one and three o'clock?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThere is no such thing as a right in this matter. The discretion is left with the Chair. I exercise that as far as I can to help Members, but I must ask not to be given questions when I have to be attending to other matters.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI am sure, Mr Speaker, that the desire of the whole House is to give you their help in this matter, but I think there is a matter of some consequence to the House at large with which you have not dealt. It is reasonable that the Chair should have notice before one o'clock, but it may be impossible for the Member to convey notice before one o'clock on the particular day. If that be so, and the Member makes his petition to the Chair the next day, would he be prejudiced by the fact that he was unable to get his notice to the Chair before one o'clock on the previous day?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI always take that into account, but, as far as I was able to glance at the present question, it was something which was in the newspapers on Saturday, and therefore I might have had it much earlier.
§ The PRIME MINISTERIn order to elucidate matters, may I just put this point, and thus carry it another stage: Supposing you, Sir, disallow a question which has been sent to you after one o'clock, and that question is one which, as a matter of fact, the Member considers to be urgent, and raises it the next day, would you then regard the fact that you had had the question the day before in your possession as a reason why, if the Member ask the leave of the House to support him in his declaration that the question is urgent, and he expresses an intention and desire to have the Adjournment, would you then take the view that he had had the question in his 889 possession the day before, and rule out his right to move to ask the House to allow the Adjournment because the question was a matter of urgency?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is very difficult to give an answer to a question of that kind. Certainly I should endeavour to preserve to hon. Members of the House all proper opportunities of raising matters. It is only that I am asking the indulgence of the House.
§ Mr. A. CHAMBERLAINMay I ask one further question? Does your ruling as to notice before one o'clock apply to questions raising a question of privilege?
§ Mr. SPEAKEROh, no!
§ The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.