HC Deb 25 June 1855 vol 139 cc79-80

said, he had understood that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) would make an arrangement to take the adjourned debate on the second reading of his Education Bill on Friday, July 6, but he found the Order of the Day fixed for that evening.


said, it was found that hon. Members objected to the postponement of the order, and it was therefore put down for this evening.


said, he wished to know whether the Government meant that the House was to agree to the principle of these different Bills? Were they to agree to the principle that religion was to be made a part of education, and then agree to the principle of the Bill that excluded religion? Was the House to stultify itself by agreeing to the opposite principles of these opposed Bills? Considering the state of the Session and the feeling of the House, the noble Lord would do well not to keep these Orders any longer upon the paper.


said, he wished to know if the noble Lord at the head of the Government meant the House to understand that he proposed to give up Government nights enough for the debates on these three Bills? Not one of the Bills had been read a second time yet, and he could promise the noble Lord a debate of no inconsiderable length on each Bill. When the question of reading those Bills a second time came before the House he should have to offer some observations on each of them, though he might not trespass at such length upon the House as on a recent occasion. He put it, then, seriously to the noble Lord whether he could expect to carry out the arrangement he had indicated? He thought it undesirable to pledge the House to the contradictory principles of these Bills, if they did not mean to go any further. He understood the noble Lord to say that as one was a Government Bill, he proposed to carry on the debates on the three Bills upon Government nights, and he wished to ask the noble Lord if he thought it possible to give as many Government nights at this late period of the Session as would be required by that arrangement?


said, that they were entering upon a discussion of the principle of these Bills, which had better be deferred until the question was regularly before the House.