PUBLIC BUSINESS. (Hansard, 5 April 1859)

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he rose to move that on this and every succeeding day of the Session Government Orders of the day should have precedence of Motions.

§ MR. SPOONER
, (who had given notice 1385 of a Motion with respect to the Maynooth Grant) said, that he did not intend to resist the Motion, because he was not in the habit of acting against the wishes of the House, and he was sure he would be acting against their wish were he to interpose his Motion at the present time. As, however, he was not able to bring the Motion on that night, he did not think it worth while to hold it in abeyance. He saw no opportunity of bringing it forward this Session; but at the same time he must be permitted to say that he did not think his right hon. Friend below him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had treated him very well in this matter. His Motion had been twice postponed in consequence of the protracted debate on Parliamentary Reform; and if he gave way on the present occasion he would say it was not because he had at all altered the opinions he had formed, but because he believed that forcing on the discussion at the present moment would do more harm to the cause than good. Indeed, if any decision were taken upon it, it could not be called a vote of the House, seeing that, as they had heard, many hon. Members were most anxious to go into the country, and no doubt many had gone already. He was convinced that the feeling of the country was that a Conservative Government ought to set their faces against a grant which was contrary to the constitution and inimical to the Protestant religion. He believed that the continuance of that grant was fraught with great social evil; that it was in complete contradiction to the oath which the Sovereign had taken; and that the country never would be satisfied until the principles of the constitution and the Protestant religion should be maintained both in Church and State. He thought that his right hon. Friend and the Government would find it impossible to retain the confidence of the country long if they persisted as hitherto in the support of this grant. While, however, he did not press the Motion of which he had given notice he wished to know whether the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Berkeley), who bad just given notice of the introduction of his annual Motion on the Ballot, was not to have the same measure meted out to him, and also whether the Roman Catholic Oath Bill, which stood as the first Order of the day, was to be proceeded with?

§ MR. BENTINCK
remarked, that in his opinion the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) had certainly received very hard measure from the Go- 1386 vernment. He thought it would be for the convenience of the House if his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would state whether he proposed to deal in the same manner with the Motion of the hon. Member for Bristol.

§ MR. COGAN
said, that it was of the utmost importance that he should bring before the House a Motion which stood in his name with respect to the conduct pursued by the Admiralty towards the Royal Yacht Club. The Admiralty had withdrawn its flags from this club, which contained 150 yachts and 400 members, and the result would be that a dissolution of the club must take place if the matter were not shortly taken into consideration. He must, therefore, appeal to the courtesy of the Government to grant him an opportunity of bringing it before the House.

MR. BERKELEY
said, that hon. Gentlemen seemed to think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was inclined to extend more favour to him than to any one else. All he could say with respect to the Motion of which he had given notice was, that he considered it so important that the question of the ballot should be discussed that if he could find no other opportunity he should bring it on, on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply.

§ MR. J. D. FITZGERALD
said, he wished to announce that it was not his intention to proceed with the Roman Catholic Oath Bill, but that, if it should be his good fortune to be a Member of the next Parliament, he would take the earliest opportunity of re-submitting it to the House.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he wished to ask what understanding had been come to with the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir John Trelawny) with regard to the Church-rates Abolition Bill?

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, that his hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock had requested him to move, that the Order of the day in reference to the Church-rates Abolition Bill should be discharged; but the question would be renewed in the ensuing Parliament.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that with regard to the question whether the same rule was to be applied to the hon. Member for Bristol as had been brought to bear upon the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, he had to state that of course it was intended that a rule of that kind should be general and impartial.