§ Mr. R. Palmer
hoped that the noble Lord would agree to the postponement of the further consideration of the report on this bill until such time as the report of the Committee now sitting on the Southwark Improvement Bill (No. 1) was before them, so that both reports might be considered together. There was a great deal of Church property involved in those improvements, and any measure of this nature required the most mature and perfect consideration. He therefore moved that the report be postponed till the Committee on the Southwark Improvement Bill (No. 1) have reported.
§ Viscount Barrington
also urged the propriety of postponement, and hoped noble Lord would concede to it. He seconded the amendment.
§ Lord J, Manners
said, that every point respecting Church property in the bill had been well considered in the Committee, and he should not consider that he was acting fairly by the Committee now to postpone the measure without their concurrence, which he had not had an opportunity of applying for. He must, therefore, press the consideration of the report.
§ Mr. Lambton
was in favour of the postponement, and thought the promotion of the bill would lose nothing by the delay.
§ The House divided on the original question.—Ayes 5; Noes 36: Majority 31.
|List of the AYES.|
|Acton, Col.||Trotter, J.|
|Baring, H. B.||TELLERS.|
|Cochrane, A,||Johnson, W. G.|
|Neville, R.||Manners, Lord J.|
|List of the NOES.|
|Allix, J. P.||Howard, hon. J. K.|
|Baldwin, C. B.||Howard, hon. H,|
|Barnard, E. G.||Jocelyn, Visct.|
|Barrington, Visct||Lambton, H.|
|Bowring, Dr.||Lygon, hn. General|
|Bryan,G.||March, Earl of|
|Buckley, E.||Packe, C. W.|
|Butler, hon. Col.||Pechell, Capt.|
|Duff, J.||Praed, W. T.|
|Duncan, G.||Reade, W. M.|
|Duncombe, T.||Ricardo, J. L.|
|Dundas, Admiral||Scholefield, J.|
|Eaton, R. J.||Thornely, T,|
|Ferguson, Col.||Tomline, G.|
|Ferrand, W. B.||Vane, Lord H.|
|Hardy, J.||Vere, Sir C. B.|
|Henley, J. W.||Walker, R.|
|Yorke, hn. E. T.||Estcourt, T. G, B.|
|Yorke, H. R.||Palmer, R.|
§ Report postponed.