Precedents. Two or three interviews of this description occurred between Pitt and Fox.P Mr. Addington consulted Pitt, his predecessor in office on various occasions. Mr. Brougham, when in opposition in the House of Commons, 'had communications often and again of the most delicate nature with Lord Castlereagh, with Mr. Canning, and with Mr. Perceval, to the last of whom he was more vehemently opposed even than is usual between those in opposition and the head of a government.'r During Lord Melbourne's administration, the Duke of Wellington, who then led the opposition in the House of Lords, was in constant communication with government, not only upon 'all military matters, but likewise upon many others.'s After the defeat of the Wellington administration on the question of Reform, and before the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832, under Lord Grey's ministry, frequent communications took place between ministers and the opposition, for the purpose of arriving at an understanding in regard to this difficult and momentous question.t Upon two occasions, in the year 1840, ministers sustained defeats in Parliament, owing to the want of previous concert and understanding with the opposition. One was, in the reduction by the House of Commons of the amount proposed to be voted for an allowance to Prince Albert, upon his marriage with the Queen; the other, in the rejection, by the House of Lords, of a clause in Prince Albert's naturalisation Bill, intended to confer upon him precedence next after the Queen. Both these mortifying occurrences might have been avoided by proper communications beforehand, between Lord Melbourne (the premier) and the leaders of the opposition, such as in after years, under the guidance of the Prince himself, were frequently had recourse to, when the question to be settled was one rather of a personal than a political character.' u But in 1834, Mr. Littleton, the chief secretary for Ireland, with the approval of Lord Althorp, the leader of the House of Commons, held a confidential communication with Mr. Daniel O'Connell, in regard to the course proposed to be pursued by government upon the Irish Coercion Bill; ministers afterwards resolved to adopt a different course, which led to a charge of an intentional deception, and occasioned much angry debate in Parliament. Mr. Littleton's communication to Mr. O'Connell was admitted to have been an indiscreet proceeding, undertaken without sufficient authority. It finally resulted in the resignation of the ministry. Mr. Littleton's colleagues afterwards declared that his error consisted, not in the act of holding communication with the great opposition leader, but in the extent to which that communication had been carried." In 1847 a meeting was held between the Earl of Clarendon (lordlieutenant of Ireland) and Sir R. Peel in reference to certain proposed resolutions to be introduced by the latter on the tenure of land in Ireland, and which were considered embarrassing and mischievous by government. This meeting led to the abandonment of the resolutions.* (e.) Questions put to Ministers, or to private Members, in Parliament, and statemetns made by Ministers of the Crown. ters It is the practice, in both Houses of Parliament, to Questions permit questions to be addressed to ministers of the to miniscrown, and to other members, upon matters of public concern. This proceeding is attended with great convenience to members, and is of public advantage, as it affords an opportunity for removing erroneous impressions, and disseminating correct intelligence, upon a variety of topics of political importance or of general interest; it is also serviceable as obviating the necessity, in many instances, of more extended debate and of motions for papers. The earliest recorded instance of this practice, now so prevalent, occurred in the House of Lords, on February 9, 1721, when the Earl of Sunderland was prime minister. Lord Cowper took notice of a report that a certain offender, against whom the House of Lords wished to institute proceedings, and who had absconded, had been arrested abroad, which being a matter in which the public was highly concerned, he desired those in the administration to acquaint to ministers. Questions the House whether there was any ground for the report.' Whereupon Lord Sunderland stated that the report was true, and explained to the House the mode in which the individual had been captured and secured. An address was then passed praying the king to provide for the return of the offender to England in custody." In the House of Commons the practice began at a very early period. When Pitt was premier, questions were rarely put to ministers, but when addressed to him, they received careful and elaborate replies." Since his day, it has become increasingly common to allow such interrogations to be made, and even so as to interrupt the ordinary course of parliamentary procedure, but it is only within a very recent period that the practice has been formally recognised and subjected to rule in either House. On April 29, 1830, we find the Speaker of the House of Commons ruling that there is nothing in the orders of this House to preclude any member from putting a question, and receiving an answer to it,' and that the proceeding, though not strictly regular, affords great convenience to individuals.' And on the following day, after some objections and explanations, a question was, by courtesy, allowed precedence over an item which had been fixed as the first order of the day.d с But in 1854 a manual of the rules and orders of the House of Commons was prepared by Mr. May, under the direction of the Speaker, which contains special rules embodying the existing practice as to the time and method of putting and answering questions. By Rule 152 it is provided, that before the public business is entered upon, questions are permitted to be put to ministers of the crown, relating to public affairs; and to other members, relating to any Bill, motion, or other public matter connected with the business of the Parl. Hist. v. 7, p. 709. Camp- a Parl. Deb. 1808, v. 10, p. 1171; 22. 31, p. 1097; 1833, pp. 32, 2471, 2491. See Mir. of Parl. 1830, p. 1428. d Ib. p. 1449. e May, Parl. Prac. ed. 1883, p. 193. But see Hans. D. v. 210, p. 535. f House, in which such members may be concerned.' Questions. But not so as to anticipate by a question, or by a reply thereto, the discussion of a motion of which notice has been given. They may also be put when the usual motion is made for the adjournment of the House." Notice is usually given of the intention to ask questions of ministers, either by putting a formal notice on the paper, or by a private intimation, and the want of notice has been stated as a sufficient reason for not an swering a question, and likewise, because the enquiry has not been directed to the proper minister.' But upon urgent occasions, members may assert the right of putting questions without previous notice. It is not in order either in putting a question, or making an answer, to advert to former debates." It is not usual to address any question to a minister of the crown upon the first day of a session; but it is sometimes done, even before the speech from the throne is reported.° Questions are addressed to the principal (or cabinet) ministers of the department concerned, not to their subordinates, who may have a seat in Parliament." But a subordinate minister, having special knowledge of the facts, may reply for his chief, or at the request of the prime minister. A member has declined to receive an Revised Rule, ed. of 1859. And see Hans. D. v. 192, p. 717. Ib. v. 228, pp. 1557, 1559. See Jour. Assy of Victoria, Aust. 9 Aug. 1882, for memorandum citing imperial precedents, and decision of Speaker in dealing with irregular and objectionable questions by their revision or omission from notice paper. Speaker, Hans. D. v. 211, pp. 1553-1555. i Mir. of Parl. 1839, p. 120. Ib. 1828, pp. 1683, 2369. Hans. D. v. 204, p. 941. Such notice may be given at any time before the question is put. Ib. v. 206, pp. 1264, 1327. Mir. of Parl. 1828, pp. 1515, 1863. Hans. D. v. 192, p. 1231. Com. Pap. 1852-53, v. 25, p. 303. 1 Hans. D. v. 192, p. 1755; Ib. m Hans. D. v. 175, pp. 2030, The Speaker, Hans. D. v. 210, to Questions answer from the secretary to the treasury to a question ministers. addressed to the chancellor of the exchequer, that official being present. At a later sitting, the question was repeated, and an answer obtained from the chancellor of the exchequer." 6 8 As a rule, the proper limit of questions is, whether or no they could be made the subject of a motion.' In putting questions, no argument or opinion should be offered, or epithets used, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the question. They should be simply and severely accurate in their allegations,' for when mere opinions are expressed, at a time when they cannot be rebutted, there is an encroachment upon the liberty and freedom of discussion." And an enquiry has been refused a reply because it invited an expression of opinion upon a debateable question.▾ Hypothetical questions are objectionable, and as a rule should not be answered. For no minister can undertake to say what the government, or what he himself will do, in a certain event, until the case has actually arisen, and its circumstances are fully known." "No doubt there may be subjects of sufficient importance to justify prospective enquiry, but, speaking generally, the position of the responsible servants of the crown in Parliament is to be responsible for what they do, and they are not called upon to take this House into their counsels in regard to what they are going to do on every small matter.' Hans. D. v. 201, pp. 968, 1059. • Ld. J. Russell, Hans. D. v. 133, p. 869; Ib. v. 136, p. 684. Ib. v. 193, p. 520; v. 203, p. 242; v. 223, p. 718. u Ib. v. 184, pp. 1066, 1068. Ib. v. 185, p. 1646; and see Ib. v. 208, p. 842. Ib. v. 147, p. 133. See Ib. v. 204, p. 1764; v. 211, p. 833; v. 218, p. 544; v. 219, p. 1584; v. 234, p. 498. Mir. of Parl. 1828, pp. 2257, 2275. Hans. D. v. 192, p. 1335. 16. v. 223, p. 719. Palmerston, Hans. D. v. 143, p. 1036. Disraeli, Ib. v. 223, p. 21. But see Mr. Gladstone's reply to a question whether a statement made by the chan. of the exq. that he was not in favour of treaties of commerce, and that he was not in favour of their negotiation,' had the approval of government. Ib. v. 199, p. 882. |