Before we pass to the business on the Order Paper, I think it is only fair to Senator Colonel Moore that I should call his attention to the position which, I understand, his motion was left in, as a result of what happened yesterday. The only provision we have in our Standing Orders with regard to the failure of the House to carry on owing to the absence of a quorum is contained in Standing Order No. 8. The material part of that is this: "If any Senator calls the attention of the Cathaoirleach to the fact that there are less than twelve Senators present, inclusive of the Cathaoirleach, the Cathaoirleach, should he be satisfied that there is not a quorum, shall adjourn the Seanad"—it is not "may," it is "shall"; there is no option in the matter—"until a later hour to be named by him or until the next ordinary sitting."
I stop there for the moment. The duty that is cast on me of either adjourning to a later hour or to the next meeting, I think, was put in for this reason. A count might take place at a very early hour in the sitting, and the result of the House being counted out might leave a variety of other important business undisposed of, and in a case of that kind the option is left to me to adjourn to a later hour, but when a count out comes at the conclusion, and there is only one matter to be disposed of, on which the House is counted out, I think it is plain the duty is imposed on me to adjourn to the next ordinary sitting. Then arises the question: What is the consequence of a count out?
We have no Standing Order on the subject, and consequently I was driven to satisfy myself and ascertain what is the practice in the Imperial Parliament and the Parliaments of our Dominions. It is quite plain and clear so far as they are concerned that in the case of a count out, when a certain proceeding is under discussion, that that proceeding becomes abortive, and may be renewed on a fresh notice of motion. That is the position on the other side of the water and in the principal Dominions, but there is a peculiar Standing Order we have that has complicated the position. It is Order 19: "A motion proposed but not voted on at any sitting shall be taken up and decided upon at the next sitting of the Seanad." If I construe that literally the result in fact would be that I should call upon Senator Colonel Moore to continue his reply on the motion before us yesterday, and then have it put to a vote. I read that very carefully because I was anxious that after the full discussion of the Senator's motion he should have had the opportunity of putting it to a vote, but that was taken out of my hands. I must now say, reading that carefully, that I do not think it meets the case, because you cannot construe that Order literally. I think what it means is, if a motion is under discussion at a time when the House adjourns, then the discussion is to be resumed the next day. It cannot mean what it literally says, because if it meant what it literally says a motion that was withdrawn would have to be brought up and decided on the next day, because it would be a motion proposed but not voted on, and then at the end of a discussion of two hours on the motion, if the mover of the motion withdraws it, I would have to put it on the Order Paper the next day, and get a vote on it. Again, if you construe it literally, I would have to put the motion on the list the next day, and have it voted on. Therefore, it is quite plain I cannot give a literal construction to this Order. I have to rule that if a motion is interrupted by the adjournment, the next day the House sits the motion is to be resumed in debate and disposed of. That is the position as I understand it, but it is not altogether ruling the Senator out, because, his motion not having been rejected, he is entitled to renew notice of it for any day the House is sitting.
