HC Deb 12 June 1863 vol 171 cc809-14

said, he should be glad to know when Supply would be taken, as he had given notice to raise upon the consideration of the Report a question with regard to the Education Vote.


We do not propose to bring on Supply after ten o'clock this evening. The progress of the public business, however, must naturally depend on the course taken by those hon. Members who have given Notices of Motion on the question that the House go into Committee. I may, perhaps, take this opportunity to ask the hon. Member for King's County whether he would be good enough to put off to some other day the Motion with respect to Poland, which stands in his name for Monday next, in order that we may proceed with the discussion in reference to the Exhibition Building? It is of importance that that question should be disposed of without delay; and if the hon. Member should be good enough to accede to my suggestion, other hon. Members who have notices for the same day will, I trust, be good enough to postpone them.


said, he could assure the noble Lord that he was always disposed to assent to any suggestion with respect to the conduct of the business of the House which he might make. He must, however, at the same time, observe that ever since the papers respecting Poland had been laid on the table he had been on the look-out for an opportunity to bring the subject of his Motion under the notice of the House. He had at length succeeded in securing such an opportunity; and if he should consent not to avail himself of it, he trusted the noble Lord would give him the Thursday or Monday following.


There will, I think, be no difficulty in giving the hon. Member precedence on Monday week—alays on the assumption that the courtesy which he has displayed will inspire other hon. Members to act in the same way.


said, he wished to call the attention of the House to a question of some interest with respect to the precedence of Motions on going into Committee of Supply. Last night several Motions on going into Supply, of which notice had been given, stood upon the Paper. His own name stood, he believed, third upon the list, and fifth or sixth in order came that of his hon. Friend the Member for King's County. That being so, his hon. Friend the Member for Galway asked the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether the Vote for the Exhibition building would come on upon Monday. The noble Lord replied in the affirmative, and subsequently the hon. Member for Honiton asked the hon. Member for King's County whether he intended to bring on upon that day the Motion which stood on the paper in his name. The answer was that such was his intention; and the result was, it appeared, that the order of the list of notices on going into Supply was changed, and that he now stood third instead of first on the list, while the Motion of the hon. Member for King's County stood first. He wished, under these circumstances, to know whether it was necessary that an hon. Member should give notice of his intention to proceed with a Motion a night or two before its coming on in order to maintain for himself that precedence which he previously had. He wished to ask what was the rule with reference to the precedence of Motions on going into Committee of Supply, and whether it was necessary that a Member should the night before give notice of his intention to bring on such a Motion.


wished slightly to correct the noble Lord as to a matter of fact. What occurred was this. Before the Questions which had been referred to were asked, he went to the Clerk at the Tabic, and seeing in the Order Book a printed notice that the noble Lord would bring on Supply on Monday, he asked the clerk to put his name down for that night. The clerk replied, "If that is done, it must be struck out to night." He said, "Certainly." fie Was also informed that he should lose his position on the general Supply list, and said that he was prepared to run that risk.


thought that the House was getting into a new system with regard to these Motions on going into Committee of Supply. The noble Lord's name had for several nights been down in connection with a Motion oh the subject of China, and of course hon. Members who were after him had no chance of bringing on their Motions. The noble Lord when called, however, did not answer to his name. According to the old rule, he would lose his place, his notice would become dropped, and he would have to give a fresh one. He wished to know whether it was now, contrary to that rule, competent to any hon. Member to retain his name on the paper say for a month, thus blocking out the Motions of all the Members who Stood below him.


said, he Would beg leave to repeat a Question which he put to the Chief Commissioner on Tuesday last, as to whether there Was in existence any Report of a competent surveyor upon the condition of the Exhibition Building; and, if not, whether he would present a more detailed Estimate than was then before the House; and also to ask, whether, if it was not desirable to purchase the building, it Would be competent for the Government and the House to purchase the sixteen and a half acres of ground on which it stood, without the building?


said, he had ascertained that there was no report from Mr. Hunt which would give the information which was desired; but he found that the detailed estimate which had been laid upon the table of the House did pledge Mr. Hunt's authority for the fact, that £154,000 would make the building thoroughly and perfectly substantial. The House Would only take the fact on Mr. Hunt's authority, and that seemed to be a more convenient form in which to obtain his opinion than by a mere report. Mr. Hunt had no doubt that the foundations were ample. The building was upon a depth of gravel of fourteen feet; the drainage was very good; and therefore the whole of the £154,000 would be expended upon mak- ing the fabric itself permanently substantial. With reference to the last Question, the noble Lord would see that the Vote was divided into three items—the purchase of the building was one, its repairing, altering, and eventually completing another; and the purchase of the land a third.


said, he wished to ask the hon. Member for Swansea, Whether he intended to bring on the subject of the Irish Church on Monday?


said, the Irish Church Motion stood for that night, but he had little hope of bringing it on. As, however, the noble Lord was in a good-tempered mood, and had given a night to the hon. Member opposite—a night for the discussion of the Motion on Poland—he trusted that he would also give one for a question which, he should think, would be more interesting to this country than even that of the hon. Member for King's County.


said, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was intended to move the second reading of the Public Works (Factory Districts) Bill on Monday?


said, that the Bill was under the more particular charge of his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board) but he believed that the House would not be asked to read it a second time on Monday.


recalled the Speaker's attention to the question which had been put to him by the noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth.


in reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Stroud, explained that his name did not stand at the top of the list, and therefore he could not have blocked out other motions.


I thought that the explanation which has taken place between the hon. Members had, in fact, answered the question which had been addressed to me. I believe that the clerks at the table endeavour to exercise their sometimes rather difficult duties with perfect fairness, and it appeared to me that the explanation which was given by the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Hennessy) why it was that his name stood first for Monday had explained everything to the House that I could have done.


said, that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would inform the House whether an hon. Member who stood fourth or fifth on the list, could, by getting a friend to ask him a question, or by communicating with the clerk at the table, gain procedure over hon. Members whose names were before his.


The hon. Member will observe that there was a long list of Notices yesterday, and all the hon. Gentlemen whose names were prefixed to them might have availed themselves of the Motion for going into Committee of Supply to bring their Motions forward; but the only one who answered to his name was the hon. Gentleman whose name stood, I believe, last upon the list.


asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, considering that there were in Lancashire a great number of operatives suffering great distress, he did not think that the Public Works Bill ought to be pressed forward without any delay?


replied, that it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the Bill with all the despatch in their power.


said, he wished to explain, that when, on the previous evening, he stated that Mr. Fricker and his two sons were all dismissed from a Volunteer corps after resigning their commissions, he was slightly in error. The two sons were dismissed by the commanding officer, before the expiration of fourteen days, but Mr. Fricker himself was allowed to retire by resignation.


said, he wished to ask whether the hon. Member for King's County had postponed his Motion with respect to Poland on Monday, on which day the Government desired to bring on a subject which was not yet ripe for discussion.


said, that he had promised to postpone his Motion on condition that he got a day which he named and which the noble Lord was good enough to give him.


I agreed that the hon. Gentleman should have Monday week, on the assumption that other Members also withdrew their Motions which stand in the way of Her Majesty's Government, If that is not done, I presume the hon. Gentleman will bring on his Motion on Monday.


I give the noble Lord notice that I shall bring on the question of the Irish Church, on going into Committee of Supply on Monday next, unless he gives me a night.


Under those circumstances, I must of course go on with my Motion relating to Poland, on Monday.

Back to