I should like to give in further detail the reason for my decision not to allow Senator Doctor Gogarty's motion, which was under discussion this day last week when the House was adjourned for want of a quorum, to appear again on to-day's Order Paper. There is an exact precedent, by which I regard myself as bound. On the 15th December, 1926, there was under discussion in this House a motion tabled by Senator Colonel Moore regarding the Ultimate Financial Settlement. During the debate the attention of the Chair was called to the fact that there was no quorum. The House was accordingly adjourned without Question put and the motion was not allowed by my predecessor in the Chair to appear again on the Order Paper. I should add that the Standing Order relating to the presence of a quorum in force in 1926 does not differ in substance from that in force to-day. The real reason for the practice appears to be that, by absenting themselves from the Chamber and refraining from entering when the Division Bell is rung, Senators are considered to indicate that they wish to hear no more of the subject under discussion. Their act is really the equivalent of moving the previous question and the fact that, in the present instance, the Senator who drew attention to the want of a quorum was also the Senator who moved the motion does not affect the position.
Want of a Quorum.—Procedure on Unfinished Business.
Cathaoirleach
May I say one word as to what occurred? On the last occasion the want of a quorum was brought about by Senator Gogarty who deliberately brought out of the Chamber a number of Senators in order to bring about a want of a quorum.