§ Mr. SpeakerI desire to make a statement about the proceedings in the House on Tuesday of last week on the Motion for a new Writ in respect of the Eddisbury Division, in order to make it clear that these proceedings should not be accepted as a precedent. A Debate arose on that Motion and continued beyond the hour by which, under Standing Order No. 7, Questions should be taken. Standing Order No. 7 reads:
Questions shall be taken…after Private Business has been disposed of, and not later than three of the clock (fifteen minutes after the hour appointed under the Standing Orders for the meeting of the House).1780 A Motion for a new Writ is a Privileged Motion, and as such, under the practice of the House, takes precedence over other Business. This is a point in which a rule of practice and a Standing Order have proved to be in conflict. As there is no precedent for what should be done in this case, it is necessary for me to give a decision.I have decided that in future, if a Debate on a Motion for a new Writ is being carried on when the moment arrives for the commencement of Questions—namely, fifteen minutes after the time appointed for the meeting of the House—I shall interrupt the proceedings on the new Writ, the Motion for which will accordingly lapse. It may be remembered that on Tuesday of last week Question Time was extended by half-an-hour—the time occupied by the Debate on the Motion for the new Writ. This extension, though made by general agreement, involved a departure from the Standing Orders; and it also should not be regarded as a precedent.