HC Deb 08 August 1888 vol 330 cc53-5
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

thought it would be right that he should now move the Adjournment of the House. It was understood that he should do so at the conclusion of Government Business. He wished now to give Notice that at half-past 3 o'clock to-morrow he would move the suspension of the 12 o'clock Rule with regard to the Government Orders of the Day, which it was necessary should be advanced before the adjournment in order that Bills on the Paper should proceed to the other House. The Motion of which he had to give Notice for to-morrow was to the effect that until the Government Orders of the Day were disposed of, so much of the Standing Order on the Business of the House as related to the interruption of Business at midnight should be suspended. He should state then what were the Bills which it was proposed to proceed with.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)

MR. ANDERSON (Elgin and Nairn)

asked whether facilities would be given for taking the Liability of Trustees Bill—a very important measure which had been considered by a Grand Committee?

MR. W. H. SMITH

could not undertake to make that Bill a Government Bill. It might stand for Friday with the possibility of being brought on; but there were objections to certain parts of the measure.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

pressed for an indication of the probable Business for Friday.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said that the Business on Friday would be first of all the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to the Local Government Bill and the County Courts and the Mortmain Bills. They would put forward the further stages of Bills which had to go up to the other House.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could state that the Sittings of the House would be concluded on Saturday?

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he had great hopes of that, but he could not venture to give an assurance as to it.

MR. KELLY (Camberwell, N.)

asked what would be done in regard to the Libel Law Amendment Bill?

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, that Bill was not in the hands of the Government; it was not a Government measure.

MR. ANDERSON

asked whether a Bill would not be brought in during the Autumn Sitting in regard to Scotland, framed on the lines of the Sea Fisheries Bill they had just passed?

MR. W. H. SMITH

was hardly able to answer that question. The hon. and learned Member should give Notice of it.

COLONEL HUGHES (Woolwich)

appealed to the First Lord of the Treasury to afford facilities for the passing of the School Board for London Election Bill, to which there was practically no objection, and the non-passing of which would seriously prejudice candidates at the elections in November next.

MR. BIGGAR (Cavan, W.)

said, that as a Member of the Committee which sat on this subject two Sessions ago, he took objections to the Bill which were not at all of a technical nature, and it was unreasonable to expect that so contentious a Bill should be passed without any discussion whatever.

SRI RICHARD TEMPLE (Worcester, Evesham)

desired to assure the House that the interests of their Catholic fellow Christians were considered by the present School Board, and he believed they would be by the future Board.

THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON) (Belfast, W.)

said, at all events the Bill could not be regarded as a non-contentious Bill.

Question put, and agreed to. House adjourned at Eight o'clock.