COLONIAL PASSENGERS. (Hansard, 5 July 1842)

§ Mr. Hawes
was much surprised at the motion which had just been made. The noble Lord had told him that he would give him ample notice of the third reading of this bill. That had been the understanding between him and the noble Lord, and he now threw himself on that understanding, and appealed to the noble Lord not to persevere in his motion.

Lord Stanley
trusted that the hon. Member for Lambeth would not press his objection. He had given notice of his intention of proceeding with this bill upon the very first day of the Session. No opposition had been made to it, except one incidental objection made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth to one clause, which objection he had agreed to take upon the third reading. He had certainly said that he would give the hon. Member opposite notice when he intended to propose the third reading, but the hon. Gentleman must be aware that, when he had fixed it for this evening, it was impossible that he could know what chance there would be of bringing it forward. There having been no House last evening, no Orders of the Day could be fixed except those which stood for consideration previously. The hon. Gentleman must be as much prepared as he was for entering upon the discussion; at any rate he would have an opportunity of raising the question which he wished to open upon a separate motion, a course which he had intimated his willingness to adopt. At this period of the Session, however, he could not well postpone the third reading of the bill.

§ Mr. Hawes
said, that the noble Lord was not quite correct in his statements. The noble Lord had admitted that he was to give notice to him of when the noble Lord intended to move the third reading of the bill; this the noble Lord had not done. The noble Lord, too, stated that he was the only person opposed to the clause in question. That was very far from being the case. Many hon. Members were opposed to it as well as he was; it was, indeed, a clause which the noble Lord himself had opposed last year. If he had the papers necessary for discussing the subject with him, he would not have made the objection. He stood on the admission of the noble Lord that the noble Lord was to have given him notice, which the noble Lord failed to do. As for there having been no House last night, that was the fault of the Government.

Lord Stanley
said, he had certainly 985 promised to give the hon. Gentleman notice of the third reading of the bill, and he had given him all the notice it was in his power to give. He was not aware on Friday night, when he fixed the bill for Tuesday, that he should have an opportunity of bringing it forward then; but, at this period of the Session, he should be anxious to bring it forward as early as possible. The House might be disposed to lose another night in forwarding the business of the country; but he could only say that any opposition to the passing of this bill would be felt as an inconvenience by many parties. He repeated that the question which the hon. Gentleman wished to open might be perfectly well raised upon a separate motion. He did not mean to say that he was the only hon. Member opposed to the clause, but he said that the only opposition of which notice had been given proceeded from the hon. Member. If the House, however, thought that the hon. Gentleman opposite had not had sufficient notice, he would not press the third reading upon the House.