HC Deb 25 June 1844 vol 75 cc1352-3
Mr. W. O. Stanley

said, he had to beg the indulgence of the House while he briefly stated the grounds on which he had decided not to persevere in the Motion of which he had given notice, "for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the Act of the 6th and 7th of William 4th, cap. 77, as relates to the Union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor." Hon. Members were no doubt aware that in another place, a Bill had been introduced having the same object in view,—that it had been read a second time, had gone to a Committee, and there was little doubt would be sent down to the Commons, when an opportunity would be given for fully discussing the question. There was, therefore, no necessity for discussing it at present, and the less so, as the friends of the measure were now in a different situation with respect to it from what they had been. Under these circumstances, he thought he was in a situation to call on the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, to state more explicitly than he had yet done what his intentions were with respect to the measure. He did not say this with the view of forcing on a discussion of the question now, but a rumour had gone abroad that this was one of that class of Bills with respect to which the consent of the Crown must be signified before it could be allowed to proceed, and the question which he wished to put to the right hon. Baronet on the subject was this—whether, if the consent of the Crown should be considered necessary, it would be withheld by the Government?

Sir R. Peel

observed, that if the hon. Gentleman had persisted in his intention to make his Motion, then he should have had the opportunity of stating fully his opinion as to his Motion. At the same time, he did not wish to shelter himself under any technicality; but if he had brought forward his Motion for the repeal of the Act 6th and 7th William 4th, and of the Order in Council, he should have opposed that Motion. With respect to the withholding of the consent of the Crown he was not called upon to say whether the consent of the Crown should be given to a certain Bill, for that was a question that involved complicated considerations. He did not, however, hesitate to say that if the Speaker should decide that in the House of Commons the consent of the Crown would be necessary—then, in that case he should not feel it to be consistent with his duty to advise the Crown to consent to it.

Mr. W. O. Stanley

was not to be understood as shrinking from the discussion of the measure. The sole reason that influenced him not to bring forward the Motion was, that considering the state of the question elsewhere, it would be most inconvenient and most unusual to bring it forward.

Subject at an end.