HC Deb 23 July 1840 vol 55 cc904-5

On the Order of the Day being moved for the third reading of the Farnham Rectory Bill.

Sir R. H. Inglis moved that the third reading should be postponed till Monday.

Captain Peckell

wished that the hon. Baronet should assign some reason for the postponement.

Mr. Hume

said, that as the motion was not immediately proceeded with, he would move that the bill should be read a third time that day three months.

Sir R. H. Inglis

would appeal to hon. Members on both sides whether the course taken by the hon. Member for Kilkenny on the motion for postponing the third reading of a private bill was not unprecedented.

Mr. Hume

considered the bill a public one.

Mr. Aglionby

wished to ask whether it were the intention of the hon. Baronet, whenever the third reading might come on, to attempt to introduce such a clause as that which the House had rejected the other evening.

Sir R. H. Inglis

said, the postponement was not for that object; but he would not follow the extremely inconvenient course of discussing the question on the mere motion of the adjournment of the third reading of a private bill.

The Earl of Darlington

said, that the course of the hon. Member for Kilkenny was most unjustifiable.

Mr. Hume

denied, that he was acting unfairly. A paper had been put into his hands, in which it was stated that an attempt would be made by the hon. Baronet to take from those individuals, to whom the House had decided that compensation should be given, the advantage of that decision.

Sir R. Peel

said, it appeared to him, if his hon. Friend intended to move to rescind the decision the House had come to, he ought to-morrow to give distinct notice to that effect. The House would be establishing a most embarrassing precedent if, when a Gentleman moved the postponement of a bill of which he had charge from one day to another, an opportunity should be given of moving an amendment on that question. The House had set a different precedent on many occasions, and he had acted in a different manner. He thought that every purpose of justice would be answered if his hon. Friend would on a future day give distinct notice of his intention.

The House divided on the question, that the bill be read a third time on Monday next—Ayes 92; Noes 48: Majority 44.

The third reading fixed for Monday.

Back to
Forward to