If an intended question be couched in offensive terms, or be otherwise objectionable, the Speaker in the Commons, or the House itself, in the Lords, will direct it to be altered or withdrawn. And no question should be put to ministers that is not pertinent to the argument of some question before the House.'" Questions are sometimes revised by the officers of the House, after they have appeared on the notice paper, for the purpose of striking out opinions, arguments or other irregularities contained therein. If possible the member giving the notice should be communicated with before such alterations are made." A member will sometimes consult a minister beforehand in regard to the form in which he should propose an intended question." officers. It is customary for members to address questions to Questions the law officers of the crown in the House of Commons, to law for information upon legal points, arising out of measures before Parliament, or relating to matters of public interest. But it is not imperative upon them to reply to such questions. They are the legal advisers of the government, and in that capacity are confidential officers, and nothing could be more inconvenient' than that they should be liable to be interrogated by members as to the advice they have given, or may be called upon to give, to any department of government, or as to their opinions upon the construction of a statute, or other document, or upon abstract questions of law which need to be judicially determined. In like manner, a question addressed to the home secretary has been refused a reply, as being a question of law,' as it is not ▼ 217, p. 803; v. 223, p. 607; v. Hans. D. v. 211, p. 607. Sir R. Palmer, Ib. v. 185, p. 1334; see Ib. v. 187, p. 1493; Ib. v. 209, p. 766; v. 214, p. 1097; v. 216, p. 1623; v. 222, p. 751; v. 234, p. 1436. Questions to law officers. d the duty of the home office to interpret statutes. But within reasonable limits, and according to the discretion of the law officers themselves, the interpellation of these functionaries is attended with considerable advantage to members, and to the public generally. On March 30, 1854, the attorney general was invited by the leader of the House of Commons (Lord John Russell) to reply to a question put by a private member upon a point of international law, 'so far as he thought it consistent with his duty to do so,' it being 'obvious that it would be very improper for members of the government to give answers to questions which might become the subject of controversy in the courts of law.' Whereupon the attorney-general gave the information required. Accordingly, it is not unusual for the several law officers of the crown to afford such information to members in the House of Commons in answer to a direct question, or in reference to points of law arising in debate—either with a view to determine the necessity for additional legislation upon a particular subject or to explain the legal effect of certain provisions in a Bill before the House or in regard to a legal question of interest to the whole community or as to the legality of the conduct of public functionaries in particular cases.j h The House should not require from crown law officers an opinion on matters of policy, but should simply ask for information as to matters of fact. Neither should they be called upon to give opinions upon matters between parties,' or upon a hypothetical case," or on a point which is determinable by a judge and jury," or which is about to be brought before a legal tribunal.° d Hans. D. v. 213, p. 867. • Ib. v. 132, pp. 62-65. Ib. v. 186, p. 902. h Ib. v. 188, p. 608. Mir. of Parl. 1839, p. 4212. Hans. D. v. 201, p. 328. Mir. of Parl. 1833, p. 3746; Ib. 1834, p. 3399; Hans. D. v. 209, p. Finally, it should be understood that legal information. given to the House by the crown officers merely expresses their individual opinion,' and that it cannot be received as conclusive authority, however much it may be entitled to respectful consideration." On July 3, 1868, an Irish member moved in the House of Commons the adoption of an abstract resolution to declare that a writ of error should be issued in criminal cases as a matter of right and not of grace. The motion was aimed at the attorney general for Ireland, by whom the contrary doctrine had been asserted upon a recent occasion; and the mover severely censured that officer for his assumed erroneous construction of the law. The Irish attorneygeneral vindicated his conduct upon the legal question, and being sustained by the attorney-general for England, the motion was withdrawn.r to private By the practice of Parliament enquiries may also be Questions addressed to ex-ministers, or to the leader of the oppo- members. sition, and to members of Parliament holding subordinate or non-political offices, in regard to particular public interests they may represent; as, for example, members of royal or statutory commissions," the archbishop of Canterbury, in his capacity as president of the Upper House of Convocation or otherwise; the trustees of the National Gallery (in explanation and defence of purchases made upon their responsibility for that collection); " the trustee of the British Museum, who acts as parliamentary representative of that institution, and to the lord chamberlain upon a matter within his jurisdiction," and members of the Metropolitan Board of Works." V W The right to put questions to private members of either House is strictly limited, however, to enquiries with respect to any Bill, motion, or other public matter Questions. connected with the business before Parliament in which they may be concerned. If a question does not come within this category, the Speaker would interpose and prevent its being put, or else inform the member that he need not answer it unless he pleased." Answers to questions. If it be necessary to express opinions, or assign reasons, upon asking a question in the House of Commons, the enquirer is at liberty to move the adjournment of the House. But this privilege has been reserved by common consent for occasions of urgency. Unless it were exercised with great forbearance the result would be fatal to the successful conduct of public business.a It is also customary to allow questions to be addressed to ministers on the motion for going into committee of supply-and upon this motion desultory discussions frequently arise-but a minister to whom two or more distinct questions have been addressed is not allowed to speak twice. Notwithstanding the obvious inconveniences of the practice, a minister under such circumstances must reserve his answer until he can reply to all the questions at once. Answers to questions should be confined to the points of enquiry, with such explanations only as may be necessary to render the answer intelligible. But it has always been usual to accord a greater latitude in this respect to ministers of the crown." It has become an increasing habit for minute enquiries to be made in the House of Commons, in regard to public occurrences in all parts of the globe, and a Hans. D. v. 63, p. 491. And see Ib. v. 155, p. 1345; v. 166, p. 2028; v. 174, p. 1914. Ib. v. 76, p. 1177; v. 209, p. 141; v. 228, p. 1758; v. 234, p. 1239. And see v. 75, p. 1211. Ib. v. 196, p. 750; v. 201, p. 971. sometimes questions are asked which ministers find it Questions. inconvenient to answer. Under such circumstances it is not unusual for the minister responding to enter largely into detail, but nevertheless to evade a direct reply to the question. This is a course which is often fit and becoming to adopt when questions are put to which it would be indiscreet to give a direct answer.'i If a minister decline to answer a question, upon a matter of public concern, the subject thereof may be brought before the House by a special motion. This course is sometimes preferable, as no matter ought to be propounded in the form of a question which is calculated to raise discussion, to anticipate explanations that could only be properly given in a general debate,* or to impugn the character or conduct of a member of Parliament,' or of an individual in the public service." In such cases it is necessary to propose a substantive motion to the House. Numerous precedents can be cited wherein ministers of the crown and other members have declined to give any answer to questions which they considered to be unnecessary, inexpedient, unusual, impertinent, or as involving matter of too much gravity to be dealt with by way of reply to a question. Generally they state reasons for declining to afford the desired information, but sometimes when the question is peculiarly objectionable no notice whatever is taken of it." in the In the House of Lords a greater latitude is allowed Questions. in regard to questions. Until recently a private notice Lords. iLd. Palmerston, Hans. D. v. 170, p. 359. Mir. of Parl. 1838, pp. 5381, 5386, 5870. See ante, vol. 1, p. 179. Mir. of Parl. 1831, p. 2201. Hans. D. v. 169, p. 1932; v. 186, p. 126; v. 194, p. 716; v. 219, p. 1059; v. 233, p 324; and see Rep. Come. Public Business, Com. Pap. 1861, v. 11, p. 441. 39. 1 The Speaker, Ib. v. 210, p. m Ib. v. 213, pp. 554, 842. n Mir. of Parl. 1828, p. 516. Ib. 1829, p. 137; 1831, p. 1262; 183132, pp. 1197, 2427; 1835, p. 1060; 1839, p. 171. Hans. D. v. 184, pp. 1659, 2164; v. 185, pp. 1239, 1327; 192, p. 2135; v. 212, p. 342. ་་ |