§ Sir Robert Peelbegged to ask the noble Lord opposite, (Lord John Russell) what course he proposed to pursue with reference to the business on the paper, which had been dropped in consequence of what had taken place on Wednesday and last night?
§ Lord John Russellsaid, that owing to there being no House made on Wednesday, the Committee of Supply did not stand in the orders of to-day. He, however, proposed to go into it, and with that view should move that the dropped orders be now read.
§ Sir Robert Peelremarked, that no notice had been given of a Committee of Supply to-night, though it was true that Mondays and Fridays were ordinary supply nights, and though there appeared in the votes of moving the navy estimates in the Committee of Supply, yet of that Committee the orders 402 contained no notice. He thought a bad precedent would be established, if, without previous notice, the House proceeded to vote away the public money.
§ Lord John Russellobserved, that he remembered several instances, in which a similar course to that he proposed had been pursued. It was the established custom to fix supply nights for Mondays and Fridays, though, in consequence of the House not meeting on Wednesday, the order for a Committee of Supply on that day could not he postponed until to-night. Though the navy estimates were on the notice-paper he did not propose now to take a vote in respect to them, but would at present content himself with moving that the dropped orders of Wednesday be now read, in order to their being disposed of, and to enable the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stratford Canning) to bring forward the subject of which he had given notice.
§ Sir Robert Peelhad no wish to obstruct the progress of the public business, but he must dissent from the statement of the noble Lord, that in several instances the same course as that now proposed had been followed. His (Sir H. Peel's) recollection was, it was only by universal consent that dropped orders took precedence, and that never had such a course been followed in. respect to a Committee of Supply.
§ Mr. Harveyremarked, that there seemed a very considerable confusion as to the state of public business. This was to be attributed to the unprecedented course of proceeding pursued last night, and on the previous evening. He did not wish to impede the public business under the guidance of the Government: he never had done so, and it was only fair that the noble Lord who led the business of the House on the part of the Government should afford him every facility in bringing forward the important subject, so interesting to the public, into which he (Mr. Harvey) was last night prepared to have gone. He would, how, ever, now state, that unless the noble Lord would assure him of some assistance in this respect, he would bring forward his motion with respect to the Pension List on the reading of any Order of the Day on Monday next, whether that order might relate to tithes, the church, or any other subject. At the same time, he wished it to be understood that this course was forced, upon him, and that he had no desire to f pursue it. He, therefore, would ask the; noble Lord to accede to him some day, s either before or after Easter, for the dis- 403 cussion of the subject to which he referred.
§ Lord John Russellsaid, it was not his fault that the hon. Member for Southward had not an opportunity of bringing the motion of which he had given notice forward last night; on the contrary, he had expected the motion to come on, and had been prepared to meet it. The motion had been prevented being brought forward only in consequence of the discussion arising on a private Bill, and the motion thereupon for an adjournment of the House, made, he believed, by the hon. Member for Bath. He thought, therefore, the hon. Member for Southward had no right to insinuate that his course had been impeded by his Majesty's Government. There were only Mondays and Fridays in each week on which Committees of Supply were fixed, or the Bills of the Government took precedence, and it was too much that the hon. Member should now interpose on one of those evenings, with a matter, though he admitted it to be of importance, but not of a pressing nature. If the hon. Member should persist in bringing it forward on Monday, when he, Lord John Russell should move the Order of the Day for the further proceeding of the Tithe Bill, he could not prevent the hon. Member doing so, though he must say that the discussion of the subject at that period of the Session would be most unnecessarily and veraciously interposed. He did not deny the importance of the question, but he would not bind himself to its interference with that of the settlement of the question of Tithes in England. He would, however, in the course of the evening, communicate to the hon. Member some day after Easter, when he should be ready to meet him on that question, and to discuss it fairly.
§ Subject dropped.