§ Mr. F. Maule
said, he understood that some technical objection existed to the mode of proceeding with the bill of his hon. Friend, the Member for Argyleshire, that evening; and must, according to the forms of the House, prevent the further progress of the bill. In consequence of those objections, he begged to give notice that, on Tuesday, the 5th of July, he should move an address to her Majesty on this most important subject. He wished to ask the right hon. Baronet whether he meant to avail himself of those objections, 1585 or whether he would permit the question to be gone into?
§ Sir R. Peel
could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he had not heard of those objections till an hour before. But taking a precedent which occurred in 1833, those objections were entitled to great weight. He could not give a constructive consent on the subject; the right hon. Gentleman must, therefore, seek some other mode of bringing on the question.
§ The Speaker
had thought it his duty to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman who had introduced the bill to the objection, as soon as he had become aware of it. The bill certainly did interfere with the patronage of the Crown, and should not have been introduced without the consent of the Crown. Under these circumstances, he thought the House of Commons could not permit the measure to proceed further.
§ Mr. F. Maule
had certainly no right to object to the course which the right hon. Baronet was taking. The right hon. Baronet was certainly justified in refusing to give the consent of the Crown to a measure of this sort, merely for the purpose of discussion, without any boná fide intention of supporting the proposition.
said, that he could not complain of the course taken by the right hon. Baronet, at the same time he deeply regretted it. He hoped, however, that he would have an opportunity of bringing the bill before Parliament, previous to the close of the Session, and have it fully discussed.
§ Bill put off for six months.