HC Deb 07 July 1847 vol 94 c8

rose to move as an Amendment, that the Bill should be committed that day three months. He thought that the opinion of the Committee from which the Bill emanated—a Committee in reality appointed with the view of inquiry into the votes made by the Anti-Corn-Law League—was entitled to very little weight, on account of the want of unanimity which prevailed amongst its members; for example, here was a question whether objection on account of double entry should be a good one—a most important question, involving a new form of objection, which was in his opinion very much calculated to limit the franchise. Upon that question, so important, there were only six Members present, and it was decided upon the authority of four against two; and this want of unanimity was observable throughout the whole of their proceedings. It would be impossible to proceed with the Bill during the present Session. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Midhurst had himself introduced nine important amendments in the Bill, which there would not be time to discuss. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would postpone the Bill altogether till the ensuing Session of Parliament.


said, that the Bill had been read a second time two months ago, and had been eight successive Wednesdays on the Paper for going into Committee; and his object for going into Committee was that the clauses should receive the just consideration to which they were entitled, before the measure passed into law. He was, therefore, still very anxious that the House should go into Committee, and discuss the several clauses of the Bill.

After some discussion relating chiefly to the possibility of passing the Bill in the present Session, the Committee was deferred till next day.